From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Sat Jul 8 00:58:18 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA97206; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:58:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from popcorn.cisco.com (popcorn.cisco.com [171.69.18.32]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA97198 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:58:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [10.19.130.188] (deering-dsl3.cisco.com [10.19.130.188]) by popcorn.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.2-SunOS.5.5.1.sun4/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA12583; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: deering@postoffice Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:51:19 -0700 To: Tim Chown From: Steve Deering Subject: [sig-ipv6] Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Cc: Francis Dupont , Brian E Carpenter , stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 1:57 PM +0100 7/7/00, Tim Chown wrote: >In the case of a national educational network (my particular interest) >we currently have just 13 bits of network space to allocate to >institutions, if the institutions (Universities) get a /48 each. Tim, /48 was intended to be the *minimum* allocation to a subscriber's site, not the *maximum*. Those exceptional subscribers for whom a /48 is too small are free to request larger blocks from their ISPs. >At the same time it is bizarre that a University might get the same address >space as a small end customer. It's only "bizarre" if address space is a scarce resource; the purpose and design of IPv6 was to make it a non-scarce resource. >The last thing we want is end users running IPv6 NAT. I think (hope) we all agree on that, and that is one of the reasons to oppose variable-length allocations to (all but the largest) subscribers. IPv4 history indicates that ISPs would charge more money for shorter prefixes, thus creating an economic incentive for many customers to buy only the smallest amount of address space and use a NAT to expand it locally. Steve * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Sat Jul 8 05:05:31 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA102321; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 05:05:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from popcorn.cisco.com (popcorn.cisco.com [171.69.18.32]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA102317 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 05:05:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [171.70.84.50] (deering-office-mac.cisco.com [171.70.84.50]) by popcorn.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.2-SunOS.5.5.1.sun4/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA24784; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: deering@postoffice Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:04:52 -0700 To: Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl From: Steve Deering Subject: [sig-ipv6] Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Cc: Matt Crawford , ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 8:34 PM +0200 7/7/00, Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl wrote: > > efficiency of assignment as log_10(1.07*10^10) / 45 = 0.22. > >What does this mean? Do sites (/48) on average have 0.22*2^16= >14417 networks (/64s)? No. You really need to read RFC 1715 to understand it. The H ratio is a measure of the assignment efficiency of an address space, which takes into account the inevitable wastage that you get when the addresses must have hierarchical structure. In this particular case, the H Ratio that Matt computed applies to the efficiency of allocation of the high-order /48 (a 45 bit space, when you exclude the format prefix). It says nothing about the usage of the low- order 80 bits (which is irrelevant, for the point that Matt is making). Steve * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:19:27 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA106827; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:19:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106823 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:19:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01104 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:19:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001087; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:18:56 +1000 Received: from apnic.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27192 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:18:51 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <396AAEFE.8FE380C6@apnic.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:22:06 +0900 From: Paul Gampe Organization: APNIC Pty Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] Recent postings to this mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hello, APNIC's policy on mailing list posting is to only allow postings by people who are subscribed to the list itself. The recent thread on the ngtrans mailing list was cc'ed to this mailing list from a number of people who were subscribed to ngtrans but not to the APNIC mailing list. In the interest of furthering the discussion this list will shortly receive all of the messages that were bounced due to the APNIC posting policy. In the interim the posting restriction on this list will be lifted. Regards, Paul Gampe. For PGP Key ID B49E3514, mailto:paulg@apnic.net send mail with Subject: pgp-key-request phoneto:+61-7-3367-0490 Paul Gampe - Technical Manager - APNIC faxto:+61-7-3367-0482 *** APNIC Meeting Oct 2000 - http://www.apnic.net/meetings *** * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:34 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA106948; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:33 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106941 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01400 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001354; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27720 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26456 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:15:48 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14506 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:15:47 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma014496; Thu, 6 Jul 00 20:15:32 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA122563; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:15:35 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:15:35 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007061015.UAA122563@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Stephen Burley ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Thu Jul 6 20:15:33 2000 Received: from boat.mail.pipex.net (our.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.75]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA122559 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:15:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 26259 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 10:15:27 -0000 Received: from mailhost.puck.pipex.net (HELO mailhost.uk.internal) (194.130.147.54) by our.mail.pipex.net with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 10:15:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 608 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 10:15:26 -0000 Received: from merlin.cam.uk.internal (HELO uk.uu.net) (172.31.3.9) by mailhost.uk.internal with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 10:15:26 -0000 Sender: stephenb Message-ID: <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:14:11 +0000 From: Stephen Burley Reply-To: stephenb@uk.uu.net Organization: UUNET X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kazu, Yamamoto CC: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Kazu Yamamoto ($B;3K\OBI'(B)" wrote: > Folks, > > It seems to me that RTRs are going a wrong way, changing /48 per site > policy. If you think so, please speak up on sig-ipv6@apnic.net now. > > --Kazu Hi We discussed it at length in the RIPE 36 meeting and the majority not all were not in favour of not fixing the boundries but rather allowing the LIR to decide on merit/justification what amount of space to assign whithin the /48 - /64 boundries. If we fixit to /48 /56 /64 boundries it becomes too rigid, allow the LIR's to dictate their own assignment policy (ie flexible or fixed at 3 points /48 /56 /64) which they can justify to the RIR, in this way it pleases everyone - i garuntee if you fix the boundries it will have to be re-addrressed later on and will not please all. My thoughts Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:24:24 +1000 (EST) > From: secretariat@apnic.net > Reply-To: apnic-talk@apnic.net > To: apnic-announce@lists.apnic.net > > [Note "reply-to:" field] > > Summary > > Both ARIN and the RIPE NCC have had discussions with the Internet > communities in their region concerning the size of address prefixes > to be assigned to IPv6 end sites. APNIC is now seeking input from > the community in the Asia Pacific region on this issue. If you care > about this, please read on. > > Some background > > The existing IPv6 policy document 'Provisional IPv6 Assignment and > Allocation Policy Document' was published in May 1999. Formal revision > of the document commenced in October 1999. The existing document > is available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/drafts/ipv6/ipv6-policy-280599.html > > Feedback on the existing document was collected from the Internet community > at large facilitated through the regional processes of consultation by > the RIRs as well as input from the membership of the 6bone and the > IETF IPv6 working groups. The deadline for comments was 31st January 2000. > > On 29th March, the RIRs, chairs of the IPv6 related IETF working > groups and 6bone particpants met in Adelaide. The purpose of the meeting > was to expand and elaborate in person on the comments made by the > IAB/IETF/6bone concerning the existing policy document. > > One of the issues of concern that had been previously raised by > members is the size of the end-site prefix (the 'SLA ID', currently > defined in rfc2374 as 16 bits at a /48). This includes *all* types > of end-sites including a single device. A /48 is sufficient address > space to create 64K of subnets. > > The technical motivation for the 16 bit SLA ID field and the > 'one size fits all' principle was described in rfc2374 as: > > "The size of the Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field is 16 bits. > This supports 65,535 individual subnets per site. The design goal > for the size of this field was to be sufficient for all but the > largest of organizations. Organizations which need additional > subnets can arrange with the organization they are obtaining Internet > service from to obtain additional site identifiers and use this to > create additional subnets. > > The Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field was given a fixed size in > order to force the length of all prefixes identifying a particular > site to be the same length (i.e., 48 bits). This facilitates > movement of sites in the topology (e.g., changing service providers > and multi-homing to multiple service providers)." > > It is possible to imagine in future a variety of types of end-sites > being connected to the Internet. Some of these devices will be part > of routed networks and others will not. The question proposed is whether > 'one size fits all' (the /48) is appropriate for all end-sites? > > Both the RIPE and ARIN communities have rejected this. > > APNIC has been asked to consult with the Internet community in the > Asia Pacific on this issue. > > To date, there has been no consensus on what alternatives should be > taken, but 3 different approaches have been identified in addition to > the 16 bit SLA ID field specified in rfc2374. > > These are: > > 1) /64 for single devices (such as mobile phones), /48 for all other sites > > 2) /64 for single devices, /48 for large end sites which need more > than 256 subnets, and /56 for other sites (eg small, domestic/home sites) > > 3) Assign what is needed for the forseeable needs of the site, as a > variable-length prefix of between /48 and /64. (It is important to > remember that for any site that becomes multi-homed it is necessary to > use equal length prefixes from each provider even in the case where > one provider has allocated more prefix space than the other). > > We are interested in your opinions, so that we may convey this to the > other RIRs and to the IETF community. Please direct all follow up > discussion and comments to . For details of > how to subscribe to this mailing list, please visit our web site at: > http://www.apnic.net/general.html#mailing-lists . > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > APNIC Secretariat > > Tel: +61-7-3367-0490 > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Ltd Fax: +61-7-3367-0482 > Level 1, 33 Park Road, PO Box 2131, Milton, QLD 4064, Australia > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > * APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC * > * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apnic-announce-request@apnic.net * -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Burley "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss, UUNET EMEA Hostmaster you can have a pretty good life Stephenb@uk.uu.net if you're stupid and willing to wait" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:44 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107013; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:43 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106940 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01404 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001353; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27716 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25628 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:09:07 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14024 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:09:07 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma014022; Thu, 6 Jul 00 19:08:46 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA121284; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:08:48 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:08:48 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007060908.TAA121284@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Kenji Rikitake ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Thu Jul 6 19:08:47 2000 Received: from limmax.k2r.org (limmax.k2r.org [210.160.188.69]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA121280 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:08:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 88384 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Jul 2000 09:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20000706090900.88383.qmail@k2r.org> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:08:38 +0900 (JST) From: Kenji Rikitake To: sig-ipv6@apnic.net cc: Kenji Rikitake Subject: On IPv6 Policy Document Revision MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've just browsed the request-for-comment message from APNIC on the revision of one-size-fits-all principle in RFC2374. The following represents my comment on this issue. I think introducing variable-length prefix on IPv6 will generate another administrative and political hassles currently going on the IPv4 address assignment, let alone the multi-homed routing issue. I also think reducing the administrative overhead and supporting easy migration between different TLAs is one of the key goal of the IPv6 address assignment. I also think dividing the sites into two /48 and /56 categories will fall into another administrative and political hassles too, since /56 mask will only allow 255 subnets *AS THE MAXIMUM VALUE*, and extending /56 to a bigger space will require a total reassignment of /48 space or using a variable mask, which will result in an even complicated routing. On the other hand, regarding the population growth rate of the human being, we will require addresses for no more than 2^37 (1.37 trillion) people. This still means 2^11 or 2048 addresses per capita. While I do not disregard the possibility of the address assignment to the extra-terrestrial beings, 2^48 identifiers are so far sufficient for the human being. So among the three alternative principles APNIC has proposed, I think > 1) /64 for single devices (such as mobile phones), /48 for all other sites is the most preferable choice. Acknowledgement to Akira Kato, Takashi Arano, Yoshihiro Obata, and Ho Seongmyong of JANOG on various inputs for this comment. // Kenji Rikitake * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:45 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107024; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:45 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106988 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01447 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001367; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27772 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11125 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:25:24 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06727 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:25:24 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006725; Sat, 8 Jul 00 02:25:13 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA99030; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:25:16 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:25:16 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071625.CAA99030@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Tim Chown ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 02:25:14 2000 Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.70.1]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA99026 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk (penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.68.135]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22528; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:25:09 +0100 (BST) Received: from penelope (penelope [152.78.68.135]) by penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26604; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:25:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:25:08 +0100 (BST) From: Tim Chown To: Steve Deering cc: Francis Dupont , Brian E Carpenter , stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Steve Deering wrote: > /48 was intended to be the *minimum* allocation to a subscriber's site, not > the *maximum*. Those exceptional subscribers for whom a /48 is too small > are free to request larger blocks from their ISPs. But that's where the /35 "pressure" applies because if (say) UKERNA wanted to offer a /40 to each University it would at present be looking at being able to connect just 32 Universities. By 2001 there will be over 800 University and further education colleges online under the UK JANET network. Of course they're not all big, varying from maybe 4,000 to 40,000 people, so most could live under a /48. At least with the current technology that lives around us. I would be interested to know what the addressing requirements of a mobile provider would be, in terms of scale and subnetting. What would the "home prefix" of 1,000,000 Vodaphone customers be, for example? I've not yet seen a draft IPv6 allocation policy for a mobile provider. tim * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107041; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:48 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106966 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01425 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001363; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27756 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29444 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:57:53 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05157 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:57:56 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma005155; Fri, 7 Jul 00 22:57:49 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA95077; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:57:50 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:57:50 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071257.WAA95077@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Tim Chown ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 22:57:49 2000 Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.70.1]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA95073 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:57:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk (penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.68.135]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21372; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:57:31 +0100 (BST) Received: from penelope (penelope [152.78.68.135]) by penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA22006; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:57:31 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:57:30 +0100 (BST) From: Tim Chown To: Francis Dupont cc: Brian E Carpenter , stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: <200007070722.JAA52803@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I agree with Francis' comment on the /35 allocations. If the /29 allocations were made in full from the outset there would be less pressure at the other end... In the case of a national educational network (my particular interest) we currently have just 13 bits of network space to allocate to institutions, if the institutions (Universities) get a /48 each. At the same time it is bizarre that a University might get the same address space as a small end customer. It is also likely that some Universities will command more than one /48, particularly if highly distributed. If we have single (or multiple) subnets per room (at worst a cheap wireless access point per room), that /48 will look small very fast. At present, the foreseeable allocations seem to offer little room for the second-layer ISPs (e.g. the Universities). It's almost as if we're being painted into a corner by the initial 2001:: allocation and the committment (rightly or wrongly) by the registries to ensure there are only 8K (13 bits) of top level routes in the DFZ, while at the same time hedging their bets via the /35 strategy. The last thing we want is end users running IPv6 NAT. tim On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Francis Dupont wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: > > => many ISPs want to allocate /64 (or worse) to their customers... and > shout a /48 per customer is far too large. I believe this is a consequence > of the slow^N start, ie. the /35 rule (RIRs trim address space of ISPs, > ISPs take back the burden to their customers). > The idea is to introduce a small site (/56) for "poor & little" customers > and to make it the *default* allocation. IMHO this is an acceptable target. > > Regards > > Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr > * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107025; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:46 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106986 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01448 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001366; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27768 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11030 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:16:24 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06679 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:16:24 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006677; Sat, 8 Jul 00 02:16:21 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA98867; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:16:22 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:16:22 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071616.CAA98867@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Robert Elz ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 02:16:19 2000 Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (munnari.OZ.AU [128.250.1.21]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA98863 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:16:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU ([128.250.1.5]) by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.59) id QA29127; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:15:58 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU) From: Robert Elz To: Brad Huntting Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:56:23 CST." <200007071556.JAA01092@hunkular.glarp.com> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 02:15:57 +1000 Message-Id: <16970.962986557@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:56:23 -0600 From: Brad Huntting Message-ID: <200007071556.JAA01092@hunkular.glarp.com> | IMHO, the problem lies with using /64 for the default subnet size; There is no real "problem". No-one who has ever actually looked at the numbers believes there is a problem with /48 allocations to sites (though I personally have no problem considering a pool of dial in users to be a single site if they have no need for more than a /64 each). The "we have to conserve those 2^48 numbers" comes from the same kind of philosophy as the people who bought a 2 bedroom house, then had 3 kids, and all of them had to share a bedroom. That was a problem, so then they bought a 500 room hotel - but still made the kids share a room, because they ran out before, and they were going to make certain that would never happen again. | /80 would probably be more than enough for any conceivable "layer | 2" protocol. Except that IEEE has created 64 bit MAC identifiers for use by its new protocols, and /80 would kill easy autoconf. For sure, /80 (even /96) leaves way too many addresses for any conceivable subnet to ever use them all - but making things fit in less is more work that it is worth. kre * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:48 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA106998; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:40 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106969 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01423 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001355; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27724 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05515 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:42:48 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17059 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:43:16 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma017053; Fri, 7 Jul 00 01:43:06 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA71447; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:43:06 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:43:06 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007061543.BAA71447@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 01:43:04 2000 Received: from lychee.itojun.org (dhcp0.itojun.org [210.160.95.106]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA71442 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:43:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by itojun.org (8.10.0/3.7W) with ESMTP id e66EiJK14361; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:44:19 +0900 (JST) To: sig-ipv6@apnic.net Subject: site prefix length issue X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 23:44:19 +0900 Message-ID: <14359.962894659@localhost> Sender: itojun@itojun.org Hello, I would like to make a comment on APNIC's solitaion for comments on site prefix length. I vote for: >1) /64 for single devices (such as mobile phones), /48 for all other sites But, I would like you to make sure that the /64 allocation is used ONLY when temporary (not permanent) address allocation is necessary. here are couple of examples: - roaming salesperson who uses dialup PPP - roaming cellphones, registered in Japan and on business trip to the US - subnet in a car, with temporary connectivity only. here are couple of counter examples: - roaming salesperson with mobile-ip6 (with subnet migration) - subnet in a car, again with mobile subnet support. - a home with only single PC. it should get permanent /48. Also, I would like you to make sure that it is up to ISPs (or network operators) who make the choices in allocation policy between /48 or /64. I would like to see NO RESTRICTION FROM RIR regarding to the choice between /48 and /64. Basically, I would like you to DISCOURAGE the use of /64. What I would like to avoid is IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT. By allocating longer prefixlen (smaller address space) to the leaf site, they may try to cheat with NAT boxes. /48-only policy looks much better for me, actually. Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino KAME project * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:51 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107042; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:48 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106993 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01444 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001357; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27732 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18992 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:26:33 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19447 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:26:32 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma019445; Fri, 7 Jul 00 07:26:07 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA77599; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:26:10 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:26:10 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007062126.HAA77599@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Randy Bush ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 07:26:09 2000 Received: from roam.psg.com ([204.254.22.112]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA77595 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:26:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from randy by roam.psg.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 13AJ7o-0000rS-00; Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:24:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Randy Bush To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: stephenb@uk.uu.net, Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> Message-Id: Sender: Randy Bush Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:24:00 -0400 > Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything > longer than a /48 in the first place? i believe the document restricted it to single-device network allocations. is a /64 too small for a single device? randy * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107026; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:46 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106996 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01445 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001358; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27736 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19946 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:33:12 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20019 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:33:15 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma020014; Fri, 7 Jul 00 08:32:52 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA78614; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:32:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:32:52 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007062232.IAA78614@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 08:32:51 2000 Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA78609 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:32:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA54848; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:32:31 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine03.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.43]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA21204; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:32:38 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <39650844.775A46AA@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:29:24 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Bush CC: stephenb@uk.uu.net, Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I'm not sure the concept of single device will mean much. For example, assuming we do IPv6 over BlueTooth right, what the phone company thinks is a single device may turn out to be a personal area network. Or a single 3GPP device might turn out to be three LANs inside a car. But fundamentally I'm not sure the RIRs need to even think about it; that question should be well below the horizon for an RIR policy. IMHO. Brian Randy Bush wrote: > > > Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything > > longer than a /48 in the first place? > > i believe the document restricted it to single-device network allocations. > is a /64 too small for a single device? > > randy * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:51 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA106999; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:41 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106967 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01426 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001359; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27740 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23726 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:23:53 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01512 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:23:52 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001508; Fri, 7 Jul 00 17:23:48 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA88695; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:23:49 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:23:49 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007070723.RAA88695@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Francis Dupont ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 17:23:48 2000 Received: from melimelo.enst-bretagne.fr (melimelo.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.115.36]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA88687 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:23:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsm.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (rsm.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.1]) by melimelo.enst-bretagne.fr (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e677Mh651864; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:22:44 +0200 Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [193.52.74.194]) by rsm.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09833; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:22:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA52803; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:22:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr) Message-Id: <200007070722.JAA52803@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Brian E Carpenter cc: stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:30:32 CDT. <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:22:23 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr In your previous mail you wrote: Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything longer than a /48 in the first place? => many ISPs want to allocate /64 (or worse) to their customers... and shout a /48 per customer is far too large. I believe this is a consequence of the slow^N start, ie. the /35 rule (RIRs trim address space of ISPs, ISPs take back the burden to their customers). The idea is to introduce a small site (/56) for "poor & little" customers and to make it the *default* allocation. IMHO this is an acceptable target. Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107038; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:46 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106991 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01446 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001371; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27788 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11504 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:56:27 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06931 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:56:29 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006928; Sat, 8 Jul 00 02:56:01 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA99622; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:56:02 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:56:02 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071656.CAA99622@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [itojun@iijlab.net] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 02:56:01 2000 Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA99618 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:56:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W/smtpfeed 1.06) with ESMTP id BAA14149; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:55:58 +0900 (JST) To: Kazu Yamamoto (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOzNLXE9CSScbKEI=?=) cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net In-reply-to: kazu's message of Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:27:14 JST. <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:55:58 +0900 Message-ID: <14147.962988958@coconut.itojun.org> Sender: itojun@itojun.org sorry for too much cross-posting. I think the following part in the APNIC text is slightly unclear. >These are: >1) /64 for single devices (such as mobile phones), /48 for all other sites >2) /64 for single devices, /48 for large end sites which need more > than 256 subnets, and /56 for other sites (eg small, domestic/home sites) Does /64 mean "address behind the device", or "address for the ppp link"? (1) (2) ISP router ISP router |link local only |link local and global | | <--- /64 is here |link local only |link local and global customer router customer device |link local and global ==+=== <--- /64 is here Note that it is legal and possible to run routing protocol on diagram (1). All of IPv6 routing protocol is written this way (and static routing is possible too). itojun * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA106976; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:43 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106960 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01422 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001360; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27744 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26011 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:43:43 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03345 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:43:46 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma003343; Fri, 7 Jul 00 18:43:27 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA90248; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:43:28 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:43:28 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007070843.SAA90248@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Stephen Burley ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 18:43:26 2000 Received: from boat.mail.pipex.net (our.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.75]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA90244 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28048 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 08:43:20 -0000 Received: from mailhost.puck.pipex.net (HELO mailhost.uk.internal) (194.130.147.54) by our.mail.pipex.net with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 08:43:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 7831 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 08:43:19 -0000 Received: from merlin.cam.uk.internal (HELO uk.uu.net) (172.31.3.9) by mailhost.uk.internal with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 08:43:19 -0000 Sender: stephenb Message-ID: <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:42:08 +0000 From: Stephen Burley Reply-To: stephenb@uk.uu.net Organization: UUNET X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Stephen, > > Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything > longer than a /48 in the first place? > Call me oldfashioned but i remember when people thought we had enough space in IPv4 and it would never run out. If you fix the boundry at a /48 it means an ISP will go through their block of addresses way too fast. It also means that out customers do not have to think about what they are deploying as they know they will get a /48 no matter what. So a flexible boundry between /48 and /64 would help us to help customers to think about how they will deploy their address space. A /64 for dialup is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not going to be enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large lan behind it. Just my thoughts. > > Brian > > Stephen Burley wrote: > > > > "Kazu Yamamoto ($B;3K\OBI'(B)" wrote: > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > It seems to me that RTRs are going a wrong way, changing /48 per site > > > policy. If you think so, please speak up on sig-ipv6@apnic.net now. > > > > > > --Kazu > > > > Hi > > We discussed it at length in the RIPE 36 meeting and the majority not all > > were not in favour of not fixing the boundries but rather allowing the LIR to > > decide on merit/justification what amount of space to assign whithin the /48 - > > /64 boundries. If we fixit to /48 /56 /64 boundries it becomes too rigid, allow > > > > the LIR's to dictate their own assignment policy (ie flexible or fixed at 3 > > points /48 /56 /64) which they can justify to the RIR, in this way it pleases > > everyone - i garuntee if you fix the boundries it will have to be re-addrressed > > > > later on and will not please all. > > > > My thoughts > > Stephen Burley > > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Subject: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision > > > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:24:24 +1000 (EST) > > > From: secretariat@apnic.net > > > Reply-To: apnic-talk@apnic.net > > > To: apnic-announce@lists.apnic.net > > > > > > [Note "reply-to:" field] > > > > > > Summary > > > > > > Both ARIN and the RIPE NCC have had discussions with the Internet > > > communities in their region concerning the size of address prefixes > > > to be assigned to IPv6 end sites. APNIC is now seeking input from > > > the community in the Asia Pacific region on this issue. If you care > > > about this, please read on. > > > > > > Some background > > > > > > The existing IPv6 policy document 'Provisional IPv6 Assignment and > > > Allocation Policy Document' was published in May 1999. Formal revision > > > of the document commenced in October 1999. The existing document > > > is available at: > > > > > > http://www.apnic.net/drafts/ipv6/ipv6-policy-280599.html > > > > > > Feedback on the existing document was collected from the Internet community > > > at large facilitated through the regional processes of consultation by > > > the RIRs as well as input from the membership of the 6bone and the > > > IETF IPv6 working groups. The deadline for comments was 31st January 2000. > > > > > > On 29th March, the RIRs, chairs of the IPv6 related IETF working > > > groups and 6bone particpants met in Adelaide. The purpose of the meeting > > > was to expand and elaborate in person on the comments made by the > > > IAB/IETF/6bone concerning the existing policy document. > > > > > > One of the issues of concern that had been previously raised by > > > members is the size of the end-site prefix (the 'SLA ID', currently > > > defined in rfc2374 as 16 bits at a /48). This includes *all* types > > > of end-sites including a single device. A /48 is sufficient address > > > space to create 64K of subnets. > > > > > > The technical motivation for the 16 bit SLA ID field and the > > > 'one size fits all' principle was described in rfc2374 as: > > > > > > "The size of the Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field is 16 bits. > > > This supports 65,535 individual subnets per site. The design goal > > > for the size of this field was to be sufficient for all but the > > > largest of organizations. Organizations which need additional > > > subnets can arrange with the organization they are obtaining Internet > > > service from to obtain additional site identifiers and use this to > > > create additional subnets. > > > > > > The Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field was given a fixed size in > > > order to force the length of all prefixes identifying a particular > > > site to be the same length (i.e., 48 bits). This facilitates > > > movement of sites in the topology (e.g., changing service providers > > > and multi-homing to multiple service providers)." > > > > > > It is possible to imagine in future a variety of types of end-sites > > > being connected to the Internet. Some of these devices will be part > > > of routed networks and others will not. The question proposed is whether > > > 'one size fits all' (the /48) is appropriate for all end-sites? > > > > > > Both the RIPE and ARIN communities have rejected this. > > > > > > APNIC has been asked to consult with the Internet community in the > > > Asia Pacific on this issue. > > > > > > To date, there has been no consensus on what alternatives should be > > > taken, but 3 different approaches have been identified in addition to > > > the 16 bit SLA ID field specified in rfc2374. > > > > > > These are: > > > > > > 1) /64 for single devices (such as mobile phones), /48 for all other sites > > > > > > 2) /64 for single devices, /48 for large end sites which need more > > > than 256 subnets, and /56 for other sites (eg small, domestic/home sites) > > > > > > 3) Assign what is needed for the forseeable needs of the site, as a > > > variable-length prefix of between /48 and /64. (It is important to > > > remember that for any site that becomes multi-homed it is necessary to > > > use equal length prefixes from each provider even in the case where > > > one provider has allocated more prefix space than the other). > > > > > > We are interested in your opinions, so that we may convey this to the > > > other RIRs and to the IETF community. Please direct all follow up > > > discussion and comments to . For details of > > > how to subscribe to this mailing list, please visit our web site at: > > > http://www.apnic.net/general.html#mailing-lists . > > > > > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > > APNIC Secretariat > > > > > > Tel: +61-7-3367-0490 > > > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Ltd Fax: +61-7-3367-0482 > > > Level 1, 33 Park Road, PO Box 2131, Milton, QLD 4064, Australia > > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > > > > > * APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC * > > > * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apnic-announce-request@apnic.net * > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Stephen Burley "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss, > > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster you can have a pretty good life > > Stephenb@uk.uu.net if you're stupid and willing to wait" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Burley "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss, UUNET EMEA Hostmaster you can have a pretty good life [SB855-RIPE] if you're stupid and willing to wait" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:58 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107143; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:58 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107133 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01528 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001381; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27828 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA13441 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:57:16 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07844 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:57:19 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007842; Sat, 8 Jul 00 04:57:18 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA102118; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:57:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:57:19 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071857.EAA102118@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from ["Matt Crawford" ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 04:57:18 2000 Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (gungnir.fnal.gov [131.225.80.1]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA102113 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:57:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gungnir.fnal.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08653; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:57:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200007071857.NAA08653@gungnir.fnal.gov> To: Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net From: "Matt Crawford" Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:34:22 +0200. Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:57:11 -0500 Sender: crawdad@gungnir.fnal.gov > > efficiency of assignment as log_10(1.07*10^10) / 45 = 0.22. > > What does this mean? Do sites (/48) on average have 0.22*2^16= > 14417 networks (/64s)? This means that if they want to have more than 10^(0.22 * 16) = 3311 subnets, they must assign them more efficiently (more densely) than site identifiers are assigned. This should not be difficult to do, since they would have no need to do variable-length subnet masks like we're doing at this site in IPv4. (Our subnets range in size from /28 to /21.) Matt Crawford * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:23:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107001; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:41 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA106962 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01424 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001356; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27728 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA17586 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:32:41 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18667 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:32:45 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma018665; Fri, 7 Jul 00 05:32:22 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA75864; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:32:25 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:32:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007061932.FAA75864@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 05:32:23 2000 Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA75860 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:32:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA14734; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:32:03 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine03.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.43]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA15040; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:32:05 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:30:32 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stephenb@uk.uu.net CC: Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stephen, Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything longer than a /48 in the first place? Brian Stephen Burley wrote: > > "Kazu Yamamoto ($B;3K\OBI'(B)" wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > It seems to me that RTRs are going a wrong way, changing /48 per site > > policy. If you think so, please speak up on sig-ipv6@apnic.net now. > > > > --Kazu > > Hi > We discussed it at length in the RIPE 36 meeting and the majority not all > were not in favour of not fixing the boundries but rather allowing the LIR to > decide on merit/justification what amount of space to assign whithin the /48 - > /64 boundries. If we fixit to /48 /56 /64 boundries it becomes too rigid, allow > > the LIR's to dictate their own assignment policy (ie flexible or fixed at 3 > points /48 /56 /64) which they can justify to the RIR, in this way it pleases > everyone - i garuntee if you fix the boundries it will have to be re-addrressed > > later on and will not please all. > > My thoughts > Stephen Burley > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Subject: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision > > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:24:24 +1000 (EST) > > From: secretariat@apnic.net > > Reply-To: apnic-talk@apnic.net > > To: apnic-announce@lists.apnic.net > > > > [Note "reply-to:" field] > > > > Summary > > > > Both ARIN and the RIPE NCC have had discussions with the Internet > > communities in their region concerning the size of address prefixes > > to be assigned to IPv6 end sites. APNIC is now seeking input from > > the community in the Asia Pacific region on this issue. If you care > > about this, please read on. > > > > Some background > > > > The existing IPv6 policy document 'Provisional IPv6 Assignment and > > Allocation Policy Document' was published in May 1999. Formal revision > > of the document commenced in October 1999. The existing document > > is available at: > > > > http://www.apnic.net/drafts/ipv6/ipv6-policy-280599.html > > > > Feedback on the existing document was collected from the Internet community > > at large facilitated through the regional processes of consultation by > > the RIRs as well as input from the membership of the 6bone and the > > IETF IPv6 working groups. The deadline for comments was 31st January 2000. > > > > On 29th March, the RIRs, chairs of the IPv6 related IETF working > > groups and 6bone particpants met in Adelaide. The purpose of the meeting > > was to expand and elaborate in person on the comments made by the > > IAB/IETF/6bone concerning the existing policy document. > > > > One of the issues of concern that had been previously raised by > > members is the size of the end-site prefix (the 'SLA ID', currently > > defined in rfc2374 as 16 bits at a /48). This includes *all* types > > of end-sites including a single device. A /48 is sufficient address > > space to create 64K of subnets. > > > > The technical motivation for the 16 bit SLA ID field and the > > 'one size fits all' principle was described in rfc2374 as: > > > > "The size of the Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field is 16 bits. > > This supports 65,535 individual subnets per site. The design goal > > for the size of this field was to be sufficient for all but the > > largest of organizations. Organizations which need additional > > subnets can arrange with the organization they are obtaining Internet > > service from to obtain additional site identifiers and use this to > > create additional subnets. > > > > The Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field was given a fixed size in > > order to force the length of all prefixes identifying a particular > > site to be the same length (i.e., 48 bits). This facilitates > > movement of sites in the topology (e.g., changing service providers > > and multi-homing to multiple service providers)." > > > > It is possible to imagine in future a variety of types of end-sites > > being connected to the Internet. Some of these devices will be part > > of routed networks and others will not. The question proposed is whether > > 'one size fits all' (the /48) is appropriate for all end-sites? > > > > Both the RIPE and ARIN communities have rejected this. > > > > APNIC has been asked to consult with the Internet community in the > > Asia Pacific on this issue. > > > > To date, there has been no consensus on what alternatives should be > > taken, but 3 different approaches have been identified in addition to > > the 16 bit SLA ID field specified in rfc2374. > > > > These are: > > > > 1) /64 for single devices (such as mobile phones), /48 for all other sites > > > > 2) /64 for single devices, /48 for large end sites which need more > > than 256 subnets, and /56 for other sites (eg small, domestic/home sites) > > > > 3) Assign what is needed for the forseeable needs of the site, as a > > variable-length prefix of between /48 and /64. (It is important to > > remember that for any site that becomes multi-homed it is necessary to > > use equal length prefixes from each provider even in the case where > > one provider has allocated more prefix space than the other). > > > > We are interested in your opinions, so that we may convey this to the > > other RIRs and to the IETF community. Please direct all follow up > > discussion and comments to . For details of > > how to subscribe to this mailing list, please visit our web site at: > > http://www.apnic.net/general.html#mailing-lists . > > > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > APNIC Secretariat > > > > Tel: +61-7-3367-0490 > > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Ltd Fax: +61-7-3367-0482 > > Level 1, 33 Park Road, PO Box 2131, Milton, QLD 4064, Australia > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > > > * APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC * > > * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apnic-announce-request@apnic.net * > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Stephen Burley "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss, > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster you can have a pretty good life > Stephenb@uk.uu.net if you're stupid and willing to wait" > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:08 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107207; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:07 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107135 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01529 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001392; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27872 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28356 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:40:16 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15079 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:14:29 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma015075; Tue, 11 Jul 00 02:14:19 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA92953; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:14:21 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:14:21 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007101614.CAA92953@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from ["C. R. Kalmanek" ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Tue Jul 11 02:14:20 2000 Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.30.102]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA92947 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from alliance.research.att.com (alliance.research.att.com [135.207.26.26]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612394CE50; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from research.att.com (pc-crk.research.att.com [135.207.17.83]) by alliance.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15897; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3969F4FA.3CB7B8EF@research.att.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:08:26 -0400 From: "C. R. Kalmanek" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We need to do anything we can to facilitate aggregation, since (assuming there are enough addresses) this will be the thing that most hinders scalability. I don't know where we stand today with respect to being able to handle all the routes in the default free zone, but we don't want to make things worse. Since there appear to be enough addresses, either the current option (/48 only) or an option that allows either /48 or /56 seem like the best choices. Having an movable boundary anywhere between /48 and /64 will definitely hurt aggregation and site mobility. That said, with the current option, having 64K subnets for the network in my car seems like a bit of overkill. This is a case that seems to stretch the definition of a "site" in the current addressing architecture... chuck * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:09 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107208; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:08 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107167 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01549 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001391; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27868 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28256 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:40:02 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA15158 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:24:29 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma015156; Tue, 11 Jul 00 02:24:14 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA93140; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:24:17 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:24:17 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007101624.CAA93140@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from ["Matt Crawford" ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Tue Jul 11 02:24:16 2000 Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (gungnir.fnal.gov [131.225.80.1]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA93136 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:24:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gungnir.fnal.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA26207; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:24:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200007101624.LAA26207@gungnir.fnal.gov> To: Heikki.Waris@nokia.com Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net From: "Matt Crawford" Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:12:49 +0300. <01D91AFB08B6D211BFD00008C7EABAE1021673D4@eseis04nok> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:24:03 -0500 Sender: crawdad@gungnir.fnal.gov > Yes, sorry about that ambiguous use of terminology. But as you see from the > calculation, most of the sites are consumed by individual entities (be it > persons, vehicles, fixed locations or such) instead of traditional provider > type large organizations ... I don't know if I'd call a table of made-up numbers a "calculation", but yes, you assumed that each "wealthy, envious" person would have a lot of address space. Then you multiplied by 10 to include everyone, then you made an extremely dubious second multiplication by 10 to say that everyone would "take" address assignments ten times over without "giving back" their old assignments. That idea just won't survive contact with the IPv6 operational model of provider-based assignment and renumbering at need. > and therefore it is crucial that the assignment is > done in blocks of /64 subnets. Even with your dubious multiplicative factors, you still came up with more than a factor of 10 to spare with assignment of /48s everywhere. (Even to personal Bluetooth networks that can hold less than 10 devices!) This falls considerably short of "crucial." > And see that with some carefully chosen parameters we can "Extravagantly", not "carefully". > get close to exhausting the IPv6 address space (ok, within 7 bits > to the limit) In other words, a safety factor of more than 100. > even with nowadays recognizable uses. > Besides, that 90% waste resulting from suboptimal provider > allocation is just due to the fact that there may be small scale > providers down in the hierarchy that will never grow so big that > their initial address space runs out. Unless we also aggregate the > providers with mega-mergers... "Providers down in the hierarchy" are to get their address space from higher up in the hierarchy. I wonder if you're familiar with the addressing and assignment architecture. > The bottom line is that we shouldn't be absolutely confident that > there's enough IPv6 addresses unless we take caution in the ways > that we allocate them. One form of caution is to make sure that a site can easily change its prefix if it connects to a different point in the topology. making all the leaf-site blocks the same side IS a cautionary measure to make this possible. Matt Crawford * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107219; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:09 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107189 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01573 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001389; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27860 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27782 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:39:41 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15926 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:36:17 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma015924; Tue, 11 Jul 00 04:36:09 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA95528; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:36:13 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:36:13 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007101836.EAA95528@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Tue Jul 11 04:36:12 2000 Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA95524 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:36:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA145598; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:28:33 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (lig32-225-4-144.us.lig-dial.ibm.com [32.225.4.144]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA21830; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:28:40 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <396A00F4.7C95A15D@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:59:32 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joao Luis Silva Damas CC: Stephen Burley , Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, richardj@arin.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net> <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Of course we should talk, the next opportunity is the Pittsburgh IETF. However, let's be careful about deducing general policy from what today's ISPs believe, based on IPv4 experience. Things are truly different in IPv6. Brian Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > > Brian, > > At 10:29 -0500 7/7/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > ...snip... > > > A /64 for dialup > >> is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not > >>going to be > >> enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large > >>lan behind it. > > > >Indeed. But that isn't an issue the RIRs need to think about. > > It is not the RIRs trying to force variable length prefixes. At the > RIPE meeting in Budapest and the ARIN meeting in Calgary we reported > what the outcome of conversations with IETF people was (the /48, /56, > /64 options for allocation). > This seemed to be a reasonable way of doing it for the IPv6/ngtrans > IETF people and to the RIR people present in Adelaide. > > At both the ARIN and RIPE meetings, ISPs (the people who will use the > address space, after all) were the ones that suggested variable > length prefixes for allocation and the RIRs must go by the community > consensus (BTW, at the RIPE meeting no consensus was reached, with > both the variable length and the 3 fixed lengths having supporters). > > A second issue is to think about a way of getting the IETF IPv6 > people and the 3 RIR communities to talk to each other at the same, > otherwise we are entering a loop, with at least 4 separate > discussions and each dependant on the other 3. > > Joao > > > Brian * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107194; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:05 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107157 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01547 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001386; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27848 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20401 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:28:48 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14401 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:29:44 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma014399; Tue, 11 Jul 00 00:29:28 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA90954; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:29:29 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:29:29 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007101429.AAA90954@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from ["Matt Crawford" ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Tue Jul 11 00:29:28 2000 Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (gungnir.fnal.gov [131.225.80.1]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA90950 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:29:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gungnir.fnal.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25294; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:28:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200007101428.JAA25294@gungnir.fnal.gov> To: Heikki.Waris@nokia.com Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net From: "Matt Crawford" Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:43:25 +0300. <01D91AFB08B6D211BFD00008C7EABAE1021673D3@eseis04nok> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:28:38 -0500 Sender: crawdad@gungnir.fnal.gov > So we need 2*10^12 subnets just for currently foreseeable uses. Or in terms > of address space, consumption of 41 bits. If we leave out the 3 bit format > prefix, this leaves us with 20 bits to waste (if subnets are /64). If the > default subnet is /48, we only have 4 bits to waste. And that's not much. Point 1: Subnets (under format prefix 001 binary) *are* 64 bits, not 48. That is not under any sort of argument by anyone, as far as I know. The question the registries are trying to open is how many subnets get assigned in a block to a "site". Point 2: You've already built in a 90% "waste" into your numbers, so saying that you are left with "only n bits to waste" is pure deception. Matt Crawford * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:11 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107184; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:05 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107160 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01548 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001385; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27844 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17697 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:50:10 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12931 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:50:13 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma012925; Mon, 10 Jul 00 20:49:46 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA87079; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:49:47 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:49:47 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007101049.UAA87079@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Heikki.Waris@nokia.com] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Mon Jul 10 20:49:45 2000 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (mgw-x1.nokia.com [131.228.20.21]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA87071 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:49:42 +1000 (EST) From: Heikki.Waris@nokia.com Received: from esvir02nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir02nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.151]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/o) with ESMTP id NAA16975 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:48:58 +0300 (EETDST) Received: from esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com (unverified) by esvir02nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:48:14 +0300 Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:48:12 +0300 Message-ID: <01D91AFB08B6D211BFD00008C7EABAE1021673D3@eseis04nok> To: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:43:25 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by whois.apnic.net id UAA87076 I'd like to contribute my view on this prefix length issue. If we start by trying to estimate the total amount of routers required at the edge of the network, this whole conversation will gain some perspective. Let's make a quick calculation, assuming that there are 500 million well-to-do people in mainly industrialized countries with enough financial resources who healthily envy their neighbors with more gadgets and gizmos (and therefore need to have those themselves): offices/corporate sites 50M (small separate units, subnet per avg. 5-10 employees) personal 2G/3G terminals 5M (1 base station serves 1000 people, 10 overlapping operators) WLAN access points etc. 50M (covering all rural areas, avg. 10 users within the radius) Bluetooth etc. local networks 500M (ubiqutous, offer routing mainly in business environment) personal mobile routers 500M (for connecting wearable equipment, personal subnet) houses/apartments 500M vehicles 500M ===== ca. 2100M Make this available to total active population worldwide, multiply 10x. Then we add another decade due to the human tendency of hoarding resources and not freeing address subnets that are no longer used. Then assume that the total efficiency in assigning the subnet space will be close to 10% due to (30% efficiency at two levels, or 47% at three levels of hierarchical providers) So we need 2*10^12 subnets just for currently foreseeable uses. Or in terms of address space, consumption of 41 bits. If we leave out the 3 bit format prefix, this leaves us with 20 bits to waste (if subnets are /64). If the default subnet is /48, we only have 4 bits to waste. And that's not much. Organizations can be worried about not getting enough continuous address space that they can autonomously manage. This is not an excuse for sloppy address allocation. Why not instead suggest providers to initially assign only every 8th or 16th SLA ID for growing organizations? This would leave the provider address space in semi-allocated state (could hamper reaching the 90% mark) but leave some back doors for those that require it. Solving the preferences or problems of individual organizations with case-by-case negotiations instead of generalized rules that may have wider consequences seems to me like a reasonable approach. Heikki Waris > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Matt Crawford [mailto:crawdad@fnal.gov] > Sent: 7. heinäkuuta 2000 21:22 > To: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com; ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com; > sig-ipv6@apnic.net; mir@ripe.net; joao@ripe.net > Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document > Revision > > > The question to answer is, for a liberal estimate of the number of > "sites" required 50 years from now, how efficiently (how > non-wastefully) > do assignments need to be made to fit within available space? > > An extremely liberal estimate of the number of sites required would be > one per person. Taking the upper range of the year 2050 population > projection from http://www.popin.org/pop1998/ ... > > World population currently stands at 5.9 billion persons and > is growing at 1.33 per cent per year, or an annual net > addition of 78 million people. World population in the mid > 21st century is expected to be in the range of 7.3 to 10.7 > billion. The medium-fertility projection, which is usually > considered as "most likely", indicates that world population > will reach 8.9 billion in 2050. > > tells us to reckon on 11 billion sites. The available space for > assignment of /48 site identifiers is 45 bits worth if we confine > ourselves to one three-bit Format Prefix. (Six more such are > potentially > available.) Using the H-ratio of RFC 1715 to compute the required > efficiency of assignment as log_10(1.07*10^10) / 45 = 0.22. > This is less > than the efficiencies of telephone numbers and DECnetIV or > IPv4 addresses > shown in RFC 1715*. Coupled with the generous assumption of > a site per > person, the reasonable expectation of easier renumbering for IPv6 than > IPv4 or the telephone, and the availability of 6x more unicast address > space, I can't see any way to justify a claim that a /48 per > site can't > be supported. > Matt Crawford > > (* Actually, RFC 1715 understates the efficiency of phone number > allocation by using the number of nodes /before/ an increase in > numbering space was made but counting the bits /after/ the increase.) > * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:11 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107231; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:10 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107190 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01570 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001393; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27876 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28633 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:40:29 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14674 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:13:20 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma014672; Tue, 11 Jul 00 01:13:08 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA91747; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:13:10 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:13:10 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007101513.BAA91747@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Heikki.Waris@nokia.com] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Tue Jul 11 01:13:08 2000 Received: from mgw-x2.nokia.com ([131.228.20.22]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA91743 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:13:06 +1000 (EST) From: Heikki.Waris@nokia.com Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.153]) by mgw-x2.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/o) with ESMTP id SAA12960 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:12:52 +0300 (EETDST) Received: from esebh03nok.ntc.nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:12:51 +0300 Received: by esebh03nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:12:51 +0300 Message-ID: <01D91AFB08B6D211BFD00008C7EABAE1021673D4@eseis04nok> To: crawdad@fnal.gov Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:12:49 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > So we need 2*10^12 subnets just for currently foreseeable > uses. Or in terms > > of address space, consumption of 41 bits. If we leave out > the 3 bit format > > prefix, this leaves us with 20 bits to waste (if subnets > are /64). If the > > default subnet is /48, we only have 4 bits to waste. And > that's not much. > > Point 1: Subnets (under format prefix 001 binary) *are* 64 bits, not > 48. That is not under any sort of argument by anyone, as far as I > know. The question the registries are trying to open is how many > subnets get assigned in a block to a "site". Yes, sorry about that ambiguous use of terminology. But as you see from the calculation, most of the sites are consumed by individual entities (be it persons, vehicles, fixed locations or such) instead of traditional provider type large organizations and therefore it is crucial that the assignment is done in blocks of /64 subnets. Real organizations could be eligible for /56 or /48 prefixes but this should not force the above mentioned entities to get the same prefix lengths by default. So I still see some relevance in this point. > Point 2: You've already built in a 90% "waste" into your numbers, so > saying that you are left with "only n bits to waste" is pure > deception. Buffers on top of buffers, but it is nevertheless useful to look at the issue from a different angle. And see that with some carefully chosen parameters we can get close to exhausting the IPv6 address space (ok, within 7 bits to the limit) even with nowadays recognizable uses. Besides, that 90% waste resulting from suboptimal provider allocation is just due to the fact that there may be small scale providers down in the hierarchy that will never grow so big that their initial address space runs out. Unless we also aggregate the providers with mega-mergers... The bottom line is that we shouldn't be absolutely confident that there's enough IPv6 addresses unless we take caution in the ways that we allocate them. Keeping to the default /64 block at least initially is a good start. Heikki Waris > > Matt Crawford > * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:15 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107275; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:14 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107163 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01550 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001388; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27856 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27472 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:39:23 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16477 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:15:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma016464; Tue, 11 Jul 00 06:14:52 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA96963; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:14:53 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:14:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007102014.GAA96963@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Tue Jul 11 06:14:52 2000 Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA96955 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:14:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA17862; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:14:28 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (lig32-225-3-132.us.lig-dial.ibm.com [32.225.3.132]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA23258; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:14:40 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <396A2DA6.7F503EFE@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:10:14 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Heikki.Waris@nokia.com CC: crawdad@fnal.gov, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <01D91AFB08B6D211BFD00008C7EABAE1021673D4@eseis04nok> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Heikki.Waris@nokia.com wrote: > The bottom line is that we shouldn't be absolutely confident that there's > enough IPv6 addresses unless we take caution in the ways that we allocate > them. Keeping to the default /64 block at least initially is a good start. Just to be 100% clear, I disagree. In the IPv6 world we can and must push the balance further in favour of aggregation, away from conservation, and keeping to the default /48 block is a good start. Brian * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:16 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107274; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:14 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107155 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01546 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001382; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27832 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA26015 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:27:01 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23018 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:27:00 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma023014; Mon, 10 Jul 00 03:26:35 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA83267; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:26:38 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:26:38 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007091726.DAA83267@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Mon Jul 10 03:26:37 2000 Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA83260 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:26:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA14380; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:26:11 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine04.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.44]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA16470; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:26:16 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3968909A.E0C7E977@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 09:47:54 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: matthew.ford@bt.com CC: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr, stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net, jonathan.2.stevens@bt.com, peter.hovell@bt.com Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mat, Exactly. A movable boundary (and its consequence, asking registries to make judgement calls) is a proven enemy of route aggregation, renumbering, and multi-homing. The lack of IPv4 addresses forced us into this situation, as per RFC 2050. As Matt Crawford's calculation proves, there is nothing forcing us into such a situation with IPv6. It's simple arithmetic. Just allocate /48s. Brian matthew.ford@bt.com wrote: > > If /56 can be agreed upon as a default then that is not too bad IMO. > However, the RIRs seem to be veering towards allowing LIRs to allocate > whatever they choose between /48 and /64 - a movable boundary which will > scupper the technical objectives of multihoming and simplified > site-renumbering. I believe the idea of a movable boundary should be > strongly opposed for this reason. > > Regards, > > Mat Ford. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Francis Dupont [mailto:Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr] > Sent: 07 July 2000 08:22 > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: stephenb@uk.uu.net; ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com; > ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com; arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp; sig-ipv6@apnic.net; > mir@ripe.net; joao@ripe.net > Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document > Revision > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything > longer than a /48 in the first place? > > => many ISPs want to allocate /64 (or worse) to their customers... and > shout a /48 per customer is far too large. I believe this is a consequence > of the slow^N start, ie. the /35 rule (RIRs trim address space of ISPs, > ISPs take back the burden to their customers). > The idea is to introduce a small site (/56) for "poor & little" customers > and to make it the *default* allocation. IMHO this is an acceptable target. > > Regards > > Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:15 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107273; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:14 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107183 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01572 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001387; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27852 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27024 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:38:22 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17242 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:31:51 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma017240; Tue, 11 Jul 00 08:31:49 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA98967; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:31:51 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:31:51 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007102231.IAA98967@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [dancer@zeor.simegen.com] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Tue Jul 11 08:31:50 2000 Received: from keon.simegen.com ([203.2.135.4]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA98963 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:31:49 +1000 (EST) From: dancer@zeor.simegen.com Received: from anaconda.simegen.com [203.28.9.32] by keon.simegen.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 13Bm4F-0003at-00; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:30:24 +1000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=zeor.simegen.com) by anaconda.simegen.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 13Bm4A-0000Ml-00; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:30:18 +1000 Sender: dancer Message-ID: <396A4E79.AB70AB07@zeor.simegen.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:30:18 +1000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.4.0-test1-ac21 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joao Luis Silva Damas CC: Brian E Carpenter , Stephen Burley , Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, richardj@arin.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net> <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: > Brian, > > At 10:29 -0500 7/7/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > ...snip... > > > A /64 for dialup > >> is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not > >>going to be > >> enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large > >>lan behind it. > > > >Indeed. But that isn't an issue the RIRs need to think about. > > It is not the RIRs trying to force variable length prefixes. At the > RIPE meeting in Budapest and the ARIN meeting in Calgary we reported > what the outcome of conversations with IETF people was (the /48, /56, > /64 options for allocation). > This seemed to be a reasonable way of doing it for the IPv6/ngtrans > IETF people and to the RIR people present in Adelaide. > > At both the ARIN and RIPE meetings, ISPs (the people who will use the > address space, after all) were the ones that suggested variable > length prefixes for allocation and the RIRs must go by the community > consensus (BTW, at the RIPE meeting no consensus was reached, with > both the variable length and the 3 fixed lengths having supporters). > > A second issue is to think about a way of getting the IETF IPv6 > people and the 3 RIR communities to talk to each other at the same, > otherwise we are entering a loop, with at least 4 separate > discussions and each dependant on the other 3. The only practical reason I can see for variable-length prefixes is for the ISP to charge more money for allocation of any prefix shorter than a /64. Guaranteed, the average ISP (no, I won't tar you all with the same brush) if permitted to allocate a /64 won't allocate anything shorter unless lubricated with many times the amount of cash. Perhaps it sounds cynical, but that's based on my experiences with ISPs. Under IPv4, I can see how a scarce resource falls under the supply/demand paradigm. Let's not falsely inflate the value of a /48 to the end-user by making longer prefixes available. Those longer prefixes will simply become the norm, which was not our intent, was it? D * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:24:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107232; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:10 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107186 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01571 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001390; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27864 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27836 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:39:43 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15874 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:29:17 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma015872; Tue, 11 Jul 00 04:29:11 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA95402; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:29:13 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:29:13 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007101829.EAA95402@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Tue Jul 11 04:29:12 2000 Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA95398 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:29:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA44420; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:28:39 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (lig32-225-4-144.us.lig-dial.ibm.com [32.225.4.144]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA23122; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:28:50 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <396A0179.241F756D@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:01:45 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Heikki.Waris@nokia.com CC: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <01D91AFB08B6D211BFD00008C7EABAE1021673D3@eseis04nok> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by whois.apnic.net id EAA95399 Heikki, Matt's calculation is based on Huitema's H-ratio which is based on actual experience, not theory. Brian Heikki.Waris@nokia.com wrote: > > I'd like to contribute my view on this prefix length issue. > > If we start by trying to estimate the total amount of routers required at > the edge of the network, this whole conversation will gain some perspective. > Let's make a quick calculation, assuming that there are 500 million > well-to-do people in mainly industrialized countries with enough financial > resources who healthily envy their neighbors with more gadgets and gizmos > (and therefore need to have those themselves): > > offices/corporate sites 50M > (small separate units, subnet per avg. 5-10 employees) > personal 2G/3G terminals 5M > (1 base station serves 1000 people, 10 overlapping operators) > WLAN access points etc. 50M > (covering all rural areas, avg. 10 users within the radius) > Bluetooth etc. local networks 500M > (ubiqutous, offer routing mainly in business environment) > personal mobile routers 500M > (for connecting wearable equipment, personal subnet) > houses/apartments 500M > vehicles 500M > ===== > ca. 2100M > > Make this available to total active population worldwide, multiply 10x. > Then we add another decade due to the human tendency of hoarding resources > and not freeing address subnets that are no longer used. > Then assume that the total efficiency in assigning the subnet space will be > close to 10% due to (30% efficiency at two levels, or 47% at three levels of > hierarchical providers) > > So we need 2*10^12 subnets just for currently foreseeable uses. Or in terms > of address space, consumption of 41 bits. If we leave out the 3 bit format > prefix, this leaves us with 20 bits to waste (if subnets are /64). If the > default subnet is /48, we only have 4 bits to waste. And that's not much. > > Organizations can be worried about not getting enough continuous address > space that they can autonomously manage. This is not an excuse for sloppy > address allocation. Why not instead suggest providers to initially assign > only every 8th or 16th SLA ID for growing organizations? This would leave > the provider address space in semi-allocated state (could hamper reaching > the 90% mark) but leave some back doors for those that require it. Solving > the preferences or problems of individual organizations with case-by-case > negotiations instead of generalized rules that may have wider consequences > seems to me like a reasonable approach. > > Heikki Waris > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Matt Crawford [mailto:crawdad@fnal.gov] > > Sent: 7. heinäkuuta 2000 21:22 > > To: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com; ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com; > > sig-ipv6@apnic.net; mir@ripe.net; joao@ripe.net > > Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document > > Revision > > > > > > The question to answer is, for a liberal estimate of the number of > > "sites" required 50 years from now, how efficiently (how > > non-wastefully) > > do assignments need to be made to fit within available space? > > > > An extremely liberal estimate of the number of sites required would be > > one per person. Taking the upper range of the year 2050 population > > projection from http://www.popin.org/pop1998/ ... > > > > World population currently stands at 5.9 billion persons and > > is growing at 1.33 per cent per year, or an annual net > > addition of 78 million people. World population in the mid > > 21st century is expected to be in the range of 7.3 to 10.7 > > billion. The medium-fertility projection, which is usually > > considered as "most likely", indicates that world population > > will reach 8.9 billion in 2050. > > > > tells us to reckon on 11 billion sites. The available space for > > assignment of /48 site identifiers is 45 bits worth if we confine > > ourselves to one three-bit Format Prefix. (Six more such are > > potentially > > available.) Using the H-ratio of RFC 1715 to compute the required > > efficiency of assignment as log_10(1.07*10^10) / 45 = 0.22. > > This is less > > than the efficiencies of telephone numbers and DECnetIV or > > IPv4 addresses > > shown in RFC 1715*. Coupled with the generous assumption of > > a site per > > person, the reasonable expectation of easier renumbering for IPv6 than > > IPv4 or the telephone, and the availability of 6x more unicast address > > space, I can't see any way to justify a claim that a /48 per > > site can't > > be supported. > > Matt Crawford > > > > (* Actually, RFC 1715 understates the efficiency of phone number > > allocation by using the number of nodes /before/ an increase in > > numbering space was made but counting the bits /after/ the increase.) > > * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:34:06 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107497; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:34:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mgo.iij.ad.jp (mgo.iij.ad.jp [202.232.15.6]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107493 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:34:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from ns.iij.ad.jp (root@ns.iij.ad.jp [192.168.2.8]) by mgo.iij.ad.jp (8.8.8/MGO1.0) with ESMTP id OAA15823 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:33:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from fs.iij.ad.jp (root@fs.iij.ad.jp [192.168.2.9]) by ns.iij.ad.jp (8.8.5/3.5Wpl7) with ESMTP id OAA20573 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:33:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (mine.iij.ad.jp [192.168.4.209]) by fs.iij.ad.jp (8.8.5/3.5Wpl7) with ESMTP id OAA11110 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:33:55 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:32:56 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20000711.143256.41652164.kazu@Mew.org> To: sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-ipv6] Recent postings to this mailing list From: Kazu Yamamoto (=?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCOzNLXE9CSScbKEI=?=) In-Reply-To: <396AAEFE.8FE380C6@apnic.net> References: <396AAEFE.8FE380C6@apnic.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.95b45 on Emacs 21.0 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk From: Paul Gampe Subject: [sig-ipv6] Recent postings to this mailing list > The recent thread on the ngtrans mailing list was cc'ed to this mailing > list from a number of people who were subscribed to ngtrans but not to > the APNIC mailing list. In the interest of furthering the discussion > this list will shortly receive all of the messages that were bounced due > to the APNIC posting policy. I think that a better way is create another ML including RIEP/ARIN/APNIC and IETF guys. --Kazu * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:38:54 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107643; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:52 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107610 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01527 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001383; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27836 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA14027 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:02:34 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10212 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:02:34 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma010208; Mon, 10 Jul 00 18:02:27 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA83100; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:02:28 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:02:28 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007100802.SAA83100@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Ignatios Souvatzis ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Mon Jul 10 18:02:26 2000 Received: from theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (theory.cs.uni-bonn.de [131.220.4.211]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA83090 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ignatios@localhost) by theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA16007; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:57:23 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:57:23 +0200 From: Ignatios Souvatzis To: Robert Elz Cc: Ignatios Souvatzis , ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Message-ID: <20000710095723.A14952@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de> References: <20000707185750.C25625@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de> <19698.962992843@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <19698.962992843@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU>; from kre@munnari.OZ.AU on Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 04:00:43AM +1000 On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 04:00:43AM +1000, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:57:50 +0200 > From: Ignatios Souvatzis > Message-ID: <20000707185750.C25625@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de> > > This is a non-issue, because we're not doing this, but ... > > | assuming everybody could afford (at least) on phone, IP(v6) over the NMBA > | network called "the world-wide phone system" already would need more then > | 2^32 addresses, right? > > That's going to depend upon whether there is internal structure in that > numbering, aside from what is in the phone numbers already. 2^32 is > probably too small for that particular subnet, but ... > > | /80 would be a problem even for all phones in Germany. > > Germany really has more than 2^48 phones? Or even more than a 2^48 > phone number space? That's a 15 (decimal) digit phone number space. more than 2^16 phones. Oops. Of course, the phone would be a single device. I shouldn't post on Fridays. Regards, -is * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:38:55 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107652; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:53 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107578 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01530 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001380; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27824 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA13150 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:33:13 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07676 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:33:13 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007674; Sat, 8 Jul 00 04:32:54 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA101701; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:32:57 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:32:57 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071832.EAA101701@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 04:32:56 2000 Received: from survis.surfnet.nl (survis.surfnet.nl [192.87.108.3]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA101697 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:32:54 +1000 (EST) From: Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl Received: from spock.ncc-1701.surfnet.nl ([192.87.111.34]) by survis.surfnet.nl with ESMTP (exPP) id 13Acvk-0005TM-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:32:52 +0200 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:34:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: rvdp@spock.ncc-1701.surfnet.nl To: Matt Crawford cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: <200007071821.NAA08379@gungnir.fnal.gov> Message-ID: Organisation: SURFnet bv Address: "Radboudburcht, P.O. Box 19035, 3501 DA Utrecht, NL" Phone: +31 302 305 305 Telefax: +31 302 305 329 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Matt Crawford wrote: > efficiency of assignment as log_10(1.07*10^10) / 45 = 0.22. What does this mean? Do sites (/48) on average have 0.22*2^16= 14417 networks (/64s)? rvdp * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107720; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:39:00 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107614 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01490 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001374; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27800 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11672 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:04:59 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07036 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:04:59 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007033; Sat, 8 Jul 00 03:04:52 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA99797; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:04:54 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:04:54 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071704.DAA99797@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Ignatios Souvatzis ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 03:04:53 2000 Received: from theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (theory.cs.uni-bonn.de [131.220.4.211]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA99793 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:04:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ignatios@localhost) by theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA20679; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:04:34 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:04:34 +0200 From: Ignatios Souvatzis To: Tim Chown Cc: Steve Deering , Francis Dupont , Brian E Carpenter , stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Message-ID: <20000707190434.D25625@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 05:25:08PM +0100 On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Steve Deering wrote: > > > /48 was intended to be the *minimum* allocation to a subscriber's site, not > > the *maximum*. Those exceptional subscribers for whom a /48 is too small > > are free to request larger blocks from their ISPs. > > But that's where the /35 "pressure" applies because if (say) UKERNA wanted > to offer a /40 to each University it would at present be looking at being > able to connect just 32 Universities. Hm... but... a /48 (2^16 networks) is already more than any University (I know of) has today in v4-land. This will allow for quite some growth. So there is no need to given them a /40 _now_. Sparsely - allocated /48 are fine, can be extended if needed, unless filled up, in which case renumbering is easy. At least much easier than in v4-world. Regards, -is * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:01 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107699; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:59 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107600 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01507 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001378; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27816 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12913 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:15:10 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07533 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:15:13 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007513; Sat, 8 Jul 00 04:14:45 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA101244; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:14:30 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:14:30 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071814.EAA101244@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Ronald van der Pol ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 04:14:29 2000 Received: from survis.surfnet.nl (survis.surfnet.nl [192.87.108.3]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA101240 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:14:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.87.111.36] (helo=bones.ncc-1701.surfnet.nl) by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (exPP) id 13Acdt-0005PL-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:14:25 +0200 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:09:41 +0200 (CDT) From: Ronald van der Pol To: Robert Elz cc: Tim Chown , ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: <19742.962993035@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Message-ID: Organisation: SURFnet bv Address: "Radboudburcht, P.O. Box 19035, 3501 DA Utrecht, NL" Phone: +31 302 305 305 Telefax: +31 302 305 329 X-X-Sender: rvdp@zuurtje.surfnet.nl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Robert Elz wrote: > If they're really acting as an ISP, then they should be treated as > an ISP, and get an ISP sized number space. That is what Tim was saying. Universities might be assigned a /40. > On the other hand, many universities do this kind of thing now > (in fact, I am using such a link right now) and the numbering is > just taken from part of the university's number space . That > should work just the same for IPv6. Yes, it will work. But I think it's strange when you get a /48 from a commercial ISP and a longer prefix from your university. Maybe you will have both and have two (differently sized) prefixes. A nightmare! rvdp * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107693; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:56 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107590 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01469 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001373; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27796 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11644 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:03:30 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07023 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007019; Sat, 8 Jul 00 03:03:28 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA99782; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:03:30 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:03:30 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071703.DAA99782@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 03:03:29 2000 Received: from survis.surfnet.nl (survis.surfnet.nl [192.87.108.3]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA99778 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:03:26 +1000 (EST) From: Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl Received: from spock.ncc-1701.surfnet.nl ([192.87.111.34]) by survis.surfnet.nl with ESMTP (exPP) id 13AbX7-0005Fo-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:03:22 +0200 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:04:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: rvdp@spock.ncc-1701.surfnet.nl To: Robert Elz cc: Tim Chown , ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: <17347.962988490@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Message-ID: Organisation: SURFnet bv Address: "Radboudburcht, P.O. Box 19035, 3501 DA Utrecht, NL" Phone: +31 302 305 305 Telefax: +31 302 305 329 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Robert Elz wrote: >| But that's where the /35 "pressure" applies because if (say) UKERNA wanted >| to offer a /40 to each University > > Why would i want to do that? /48 to everyone is what should be offered. A university might have a dialup service for its employees and students. I think they should get a /48 at home. So the university needs many /48s. With a /40 they can have no more than 256 students/employees :-) rvdp * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:38:57 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107651; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:50 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107584 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01487 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001365; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27764 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02056 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:57:21 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06551 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:57:20 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006549; Sat, 8 Jul 00 01:57:07 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA98506; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:57:09 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:57:09 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071557.BAA98506@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brad Huntting ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 01:57:08 2000 Received: from hunkular.glarp.com (hunkular.glarp.com [199.117.25.251]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA98501 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:57:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunkular.glarp.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hunkular.glarp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01092; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:56:23 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from huntting@hunkular.glarp.com) Message-Id: <200007071556.JAA01092@hunkular.glarp.com> To: Steve Deering cc: Tim Chown , Francis Dupont , Brian E Carpenter , stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:51:19 PDT." Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:56:23 -0600 From: Brad Huntting > It's only "bizarre" if address space is a scarce resource; the purpose and > design of IPv6 was to make it a non-scarce resource. IMHO, the problem lies with using /64 for the default subnet size; /80 would probably be more than enough for any conceivable "layer 2" protocol. brad * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:01 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107707; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:39:00 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107622 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01488 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001370; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27784 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11441 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:48:56 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06897 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:48:59 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006892; Sat, 8 Jul 00 02:48:43 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA99490; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:48:43 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:48:43 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071648.CAA99490@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Robert Elz ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 02:48:42 2000 Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (munnari.OZ.AU [128.250.1.21]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA99486 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:48:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU ([128.250.1.5]) by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.59) id QA29554; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:48:11 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU) From: Robert Elz To: Tim Chown Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:25:08 +0100." Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 02:48:10 +1000 Message-Id: <17347.962988490@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:25:08 +0100 (BST) From: Tim Chown Message-ID: | But that's where the /35 "pressure" applies because if (say) UKERNA wanted | to offer a /40 to each University Why would i want to do that? /48 to everyone is what should be offered. If a site is truly *huge* (that is, is so big an IPv4 class A net isn't enough for it) then perhaps it gets a /47 - or even a /46. Why would anyone routinely be allocating /40? | Of course they're not all big, varying from maybe 4,000 to 40,000 people, | so most could live under a /48. All of those could live in a /48. | I would be interested to know what the addressing requirements of a mobile | provider would be, in terms of scale and subnetting. If one assumes (which would probably be wrong) that all the mobile nodes are sharing some kind of switched link level, then one /64 would be enough for all of that ... Of course, that would make for pretty huge tables, so some degree of subnetting might be appropriate. But a /48 is probably going to be enough, even for that size site. And of course, some of the mobiles might be gateways to other local nets in which case those nets would be getting their own /48 (or if they really don't need it, perhaps just /64). kre * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:01 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107708; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:39:00 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107618 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01506 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001375; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27804 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11873 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:22:03 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA07150 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:22:03 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007148; Sat, 8 Jul 00 03:21:34 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA100073; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:21:36 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:21:36 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071721.DAA100073@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Ignatios Souvatzis ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 03:21:34 2000 Received: from theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (theory.cs.uni-bonn.de [131.220.4.211]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA100069 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:21:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ignatios@localhost) by theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA25495; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:17:48 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:17:48 +0200 From: Ignatios Souvatzis To: Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl Cc: Robert Elz , Tim Chown , ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Message-ID: <20000707191748.A24200@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de> References: <17347.962988490@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl on Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 07:04:47PM +0200 On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 07:04:47PM +0200, Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Robert Elz wrote: > > >| But that's where the /35 "pressure" applies because if (say) UKERNA wanted > >| to offer a /40 to each University > > > > Why would i want to do that? /48 to everyone is what should be offered. > > A university might have a dialup service for its employees and students. > I think they should get a /48 at home. So the university needs many /48s. > With a /40 they can have no more than 256 students/employees :-) Not necessarily. They would be counted as part of the site, and get less than a /48. However, assuming all of them are connected at the same time (!!!), /48 would not be enough, and they'd need something bigger, maybe a /44. Regards, -is -- * Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals. -- obs@burnout.demon.co.uk (obscurity) * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:05 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107723; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:39:01 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107632 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01526 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001379; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27820 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12980 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:22:13 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07574 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:22:13 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007570; Sat, 8 Jul 00 04:22:02 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA101430; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:22:04 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:22:04 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071822.EAA101430@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from ["Matt Crawford" ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 04:22:03 2000 Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (gungnir.fnal.gov [131.225.80.1]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA101426 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:22:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gungnir.fnal.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08379; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:21:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200007071821.NAA08379@gungnir.fnal.gov> To: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net From: "Matt Crawford" Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 08 Jul 2000 02:15:57 +1000. <16970.962986557@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:21:54 -0500 Sender: crawdad@gungnir.fnal.gov The question to answer is, for a liberal estimate of the number of "sites" required 50 years from now, how efficiently (how non-wastefully) do assignments need to be made to fit within available space? An extremely liberal estimate of the number of sites required would be one per person. Taking the upper range of the year 2050 population projection from http://www.popin.org/pop1998/ ... World population currently stands at 5.9 billion persons and is growing at 1.33 per cent per year, or an annual net addition of 78 million people. World population in the mid 21st century is expected to be in the range of 7.3 to 10.7 billion. The medium-fertility projection, which is usually considered as "most likely", indicates that world population will reach 8.9 billion in 2050. tells us to reckon on 11 billion sites. The available space for assignment of /48 site identifiers is 45 bits worth if we confine ourselves to one three-bit Format Prefix. (Six more such are potentially available.) Using the H-ratio of RFC 1715 to compute the required efficiency of assignment as log_10(1.07*10^10) / 45 = 0.22. This is less than the efficiencies of telephone numbers and DECnetIV or IPv4 addresses shown in RFC 1715*. Coupled with the generous assumption of a site per person, the reasonable expectation of easier renumbering for IPv6 than IPv4 or the telephone, and the availability of 6x more unicast address space, I can't see any way to justify a claim that a /48 per site can't be supported. Matt Crawford (* Actually, RFC 1715 understates the efficiency of phone number allocation by using the number of nodes /before/ an increase in numbering space was made but counting the bits /after/ the increase.) * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:06 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107760; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:39:05 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107640 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01486 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001369; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27780 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11382 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:45:56 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06866 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:45:56 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006864; Sat, 8 Jul 00 02:45:49 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA99427; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:45:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:45:52 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071645.CAA99427@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [itojun@iijlab.net] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 02:45:51 2000 Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA99423 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:45:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W/smtpfeed 1.06) with ESMTP id BAA14012; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:45:41 +0900 (JST) To: Tim Chown cc: Steve Deering , Francis Dupont , Brian E Carpenter , stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net In-reply-to: tjc's message of Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:25:08 +0100. X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:45:41 +0900 Message-ID: <14010.962988341@coconut.itojun.org> Sender: itojun@itojun.org >> /48 was intended to be the *minimum* allocation to a subscriber's site, not >> the *maximum*. Those exceptional subscribers for whom a /48 is too small >> are free to request larger blocks from their ISPs. >But that's where the /35 "pressure" applies because if (say) UKERNA wanted >to offer a /40 to each University it would at present be looking at being >able to connect just 32 Universities. By 2001 there will be over 800 >University and further education colleges online under the UK JANET network. While I understand the problem you have, I would like t know why you'd like to offer /40 to every universities. Are there any reason not to do /48 for universities, or couple of /48s? We (WIDE) offer /48 for leaf sites (an organization which has no plan to have sub-organization, i.e. universities and companies, not an ISP), and /40 to non-leaf downstream sites (an organization which has plan t have sub-organization, i.e. an ISP). Once a leaf site use up /48, they'd be able to get another /48 from us. Until now we saw no problem with it. "/48 allocation to everyone" is just fine for me (or us). We cannot predict the future growth of leaf site. We don't want to, we don't need to. SOHO can evolve into multinational company. We have more important problem to tackle. The problem lies elsewhere, I believe. Once our network grows into /29, and to /16, we'd need to carry 2^(48-29) or 2^(48-16) routes in a TLA. It's like having the whole IPv4 space in one ISP. We need to have a very careful plan on inner-TLA topology, so that we can aggregate internal routes nicely. We may need more experiences/standards in hierarchical interior routing operation. itojun * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:38:54 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107653; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:52 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107580 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01470 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001362; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27752 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29419 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:56:53 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05140 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:56:56 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma005138; Fri, 7 Jul 00 22:56:49 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA95051; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:56:49 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:56:49 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071256.WAA95051@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Randy Bush ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 22:56:48 2000 Received: from roam.psg.com (cnri-2-112.cnri.reston.va.us [132.151.2.112]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA95045 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:56:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from randy by roam.psg.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 13AXgH-0001FT-00; Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:56:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Randy Bush To: Francis Dupont Cc: Brian E Carpenter , stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <200007070722.JAA52803@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> Message-Id: Sender: Randy Bush Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:56:33 -0400 > => many ISPs want to allocate /64 (or worse) to their customers... and > shout a /48 per customer is far too large. I believe this is a consequence > of the slow^N start, ie. the /35 rule (RIRs trim address space of ISPs, > ISPs take back the burden to their customers). someone who gets it! the /35 game sucks. randy * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:07 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107722; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:39:00 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107636 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:48 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01467 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001364; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27760 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01634 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:31:48 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06365 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:31:48 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006363; Sat, 8 Jul 00 01:31:30 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA97926; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:31:31 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:31:31 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071531.BAA97926@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 01:31:27 2000 Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA97919 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:31:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA173712; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:31:06 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine01.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.41]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA21864; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:31:15 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:29:33 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Burley CC: Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stephen Burley wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Stephen, > > > > Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything > > longer than a /48 in the first place? > > > > Call me oldfashioned but i remember when people thought we had enough space in IPv4 > and it would never run out. If you fix the boundry at a /48 it means an ISP will go > through their block of addresses way too fast. Please define "way too fast" in terms of a world population of say 15 billion people, compared with the number of /48s available. > It also means that out customers do > not have to think about what they are deploying as they know they will get a /48 no > matter what. Indeed. This would be a *big* advantage. Why do think it is a problem? > So a flexible boundry between /48 and /64 would help us to help > customers to think about how they will deploy their address space. But it will also set us back by ten years in route aggregation. > A /64 for dialup > is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not going to be > enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large lan behind it. Indeed. But that isn't an issue the RIRs need to think about. Brian * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:07 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107795; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:39:04 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107642 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01468 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001361; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27748 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28879 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:09:46 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04879 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:09:46 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma004877; Fri, 7 Jul 00 22:09:44 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA94240; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:09:47 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:09:47 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071209.WAA94240@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from ["Hesham Soliman (EPA)" ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Fri Jul 7 22:09:46 2000 Received: from ish7.ericsson.com.au ([203.61.155.111]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA94236 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:09:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from brsi02.epa.ericsson.se (brsi02 [146.11.15.8]) by ish7.ericsson.com.au (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28764; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:07:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from eaubrnt019.epa.ericsson.se (eaubrnt019 [146.11.9.165]) by brsi02.epa.ericsson.se (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA13723; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:08:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by eaubrnt019.epa.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <3FW9RWGX>; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:07:58 +1000 Message-ID: <4B6BC00CD15FD2119E5F0008C7A419A5089EB0FF@eaubrnt018.epa.ericsson.se> From: "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" To: "'Stephen Burley '" , "'Brian E Carpenter '" Cc: "'Kazu@venus.Sun.COM '" , "'Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM '" , "'ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com '" , "'ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com '" , "'arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp '" , "'sig-ipv6@apnic.net '" , "'mir@ripe.net '" , "'joao@ripe.net '" Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:07:56 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFE80B.FC30E3D0" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFE80B.FC30E3D0 Content-Type: text/plain VERY true IMO Call me oldfashioned but i remember when people thought we had enough space in IPv4 and it would never run out. If you fix the boundry at a /48 it means an ISP will go through their block of addresses way too fast. It also means that out customers do not have to think about what they are deploying as they know they will get a /48 no matter what. So a flexible boundry between /48 and /64 would help us to help customers to think about how they will deploy their address space. A /64 for dialup is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not going to be enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large lan behind it. Just my thoughts. > > Brian > > Stephen Burley wrote: > > > > "Kazu Yamamoto ($B;3K\OBI'(B)" wrote: > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > It seems to me that RTRs are going a wrong way, changing /48 per site > > > policy. If you think so, please speak up on sig-ipv6@apnic.net now. > > > > > > --Kazu > > > > Hi > > We discussed it at length in the RIPE 36 meeting and the majority not all > > were not in favour of not fixing the boundries but rather allowing the LIR to > > decide on merit/justification what amount of space to assign whithin the /48 - > > /64 boundries. If we fixit to /48 /56 /64 boundries it becomes too rigid, allow > > > > the LIR's to dictate their own assignment policy (ie flexible or fixed at 3 > > points /48 /56 /64) which they can justify to the RIR, in this way it pleases > > everyone - i garuntee if you fix the boundries it will have to be re-addrressed > > > > later on and will not please all. > > > > My thoughts > > Stephen Burley > > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Subject: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision > > > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:24:24 +1000 (EST) > > > From: secretariat@apnic.net > > > Reply-To: apnic-talk@apnic.net > > > To: apnic-announce@lists.apnic.net > > > > > > [Note "reply-to:" field] > > > > > > Summary > > > > > > Both ARIN and the RIPE NCC have had discussions with the Internet > > > communities in their region concerning the size of address prefixes > > > to be assigned to IPv6 end sites. APNIC is now seeking input from > > > the community in the Asia Pacific region on this issue. If you care > > > about this, please read on. > > > > > > Some background > > > > > > The existing IPv6 policy document 'Provisional IPv6 Assignment and > > > Allocation Policy Document' was published in May 1999. Formal revision > > > of the document commenced in October 1999. The existing document > > > is available at: > > > > > > http://www.apnic.net/drafts/ipv6/ipv6-policy-280599.html > > > > > > Feedback on the existing document was collected from the Internet community > > > at large facilitated through the regional processes of consultation by > > > the RIRs as well as input from the membership of the 6bone and the > > > IETF IPv6 working groups. The deadline for comments was 31st January 2000. > > > > > > On 29th March, the RIRs, chairs of the IPv6 related IETF working > > > groups and 6bone particpants met in Adelaide. The purpose of the meeting > > > was to expand and elaborate in person on the comments made by the > > > IAB/IETF/6bone concerning the existing policy document. > > > > > > One of the issues of concern that had been previously raised by > > > members is the size of the end-site prefix (the 'SLA ID', currently > > > defined in rfc2374 as 16 bits at a /48). This includes *all* types > > > of end-sites including a single device. A /48 is sufficient address > > > space to create 64K of subnets. > > > > > > The technical motivation for the 16 bit SLA ID field and the > > > 'one size fits all' principle was described in rfc2374 as: > > > > > > "The size of the Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field is 16 bits. > > > This supports 65,535 individual subnets per site. The design goal > > > for the size of this field was to be sufficient for all but the > > > largest of organizations. Organizations which need additional > > > subnets can arrange with the organization they are obtaining Internet > > > service from to obtain additional site identifiers and use this to > > > create additional subnets. > > > > > > The Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field was given a fixed size in > > > order to force the length of all prefixes identifying a particular > > > site to be the same length (i.e., 48 bits). This facilitates > > > movement of sites in the topology (e.g., changing service providers > > > and multi-homing to multiple service providers)." > > > > > > It is possible to imagine in future a variety of types of end-sites > > > being connected to the Internet. Some of these devices will be part > > > of routed networks and others will not. The question proposed is whether > > > 'one size fits all' (the /48) is appropriate for all end-sites? > > > > > > Both the RIPE and ARIN communities have rejected this. > > > > > > APNIC has been asked to consult with the Internet community in the > > > Asia Pacific on this issue. > > > > > > To date, there has been no consensus on what alternatives should be > > > taken, but 3 different approaches have been identified in addition to > > > the 16 bit SLA ID field specified in rfc2374. > > > > > > These are: > > > > > > 1) /64 for single devices (such as mobile phones), /48 for all other sites > > > > > > 2) /64 for single devices, /48 for large end sites which need more > > > than 256 subnets, and /56 for other sites (eg small, domestic/home sites) > > > > > > 3) Assign what is needed for the forseeable needs of the site, as a > > > variable-length prefix of between /48 and /64. (It is important to > > > remember that for any site that becomes multi-homed it is necessary to > > > use equal length prefixes from each provider even in the case where > > > one provider has allocated more prefix space than the other). > > > > > > We are interested in your opinions, so that we may convey this to the > > > other RIRs and to the IETF community. Please direct all follow up > > > discussion and comments to . For details of > > > how to subscribe to this mailing list, please visit our web site at: > > > http://www.apnic.net/general.html#mailing-lists . > > > > > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > > APNIC Secretariat > > > > > > Tel: +61-7-3367-0490 > > > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Ltd Fax: +61-7-3367-0482 > > > Level 1, 33 Park Road, PO Box 2131, Milton, QLD 4064, Australia > > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > > > > > * APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC * > > > * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apnic-announce-request@apnic.net * > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Stephen Burley "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss, > > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster you can have a pretty good life > > Stephenb@uk.uu.net if you're stupid and willing to wait" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Burley "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss, UUNET EMEA Hostmaster you can have a pretty good life [SB855-RIPE] if you're stupid and willing to wait" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFE80B.FC30E3D0 Content-Type: text/html RE: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision

VERY true IMO



Call me oldfashioned but i remember when people thought we had enough
space in IPv4
and it would never run out. If you fix the boundry at a /48 it means an
ISP will go
through their block of addresses way too fast. It also means that out
customers do
not have to think about what they are deploying as they know they will
get a /48 no
matter what. So a flexible boundry between /48 and /64 would help us to
help
customers to think about how they will deploy their address space. A /64
for dialup
is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not going
to be
enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large lan
behind it.

Just my thoughts.





>
>    Brian
>
> Stephen Burley wrote:
> >
> > "Kazu Yamamoto ($B;3K\OBI'(B)" wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > It seems to me that RTRs are going a wrong way, changing /48 per
site
> > > policy. If you think so, please speak up on sig-ipv6@apnic.net
now.
> > >
> > > --Kazu
> >
> > Hi
> >     We discussed it at length in the RIPE 36 meeting and the
majority not all
> > were not in favour of not fixing the boundries but rather allowing
the LIR to
> > decide on merit/justification what amount of space to assign whithin
the /48 -
> > /64 boundries. If we fixit to /48 /56 /64 boundries it becomes too
rigid, allow
> >
> > the LIR's to dictate their own assignment policy (ie flexible or
fixed at 3
> > points /48 /56 /64) which they can justify to the RIR, in this way
it pleases
> > everyone - i garuntee if you fix the boundries it will have to be
re-addrressed
> >
> > later on and will not please all.
> >
> > My thoughts
> > Stephen Burley
> > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Subject: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision
> > > Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:24:24 +1000 (EST)
> > > From: secretariat@apnic.net
> > > Reply-To: apnic-talk@apnic.net
> > > To: apnic-announce@lists.apnic.net
> > >
> > > [Note "reply-to:" field]
> > >
> > > Summary
> > >
> > > Both ARIN and the RIPE NCC have had discussions with the Internet
> > > communities in their region concerning the size of address
prefixes
> > > to be assigned to IPv6 end sites.  APNIC is now seeking input from
> > > the community in the Asia Pacific region on this issue. If you
care
> > > about this, please read on.
> > >
> > > Some background
> > >
> > > The existing IPv6 policy document 'Provisional IPv6 Assignment and
> > > Allocation Policy Document' was published in May 1999. Formal
revision
> > > of the document commenced in October 1999. The existing document
> > > is available at:
> > >
> > > http://www.apnic.net/drafts/ipv6/ipv6-policy-280599.html
> > >
> > > Feedback on the existing document was collected from the Internet
community
> > > at large facilitated through the regional processes of
consultation by
> > > the RIRs as well as input from the membership of the 6bone and the
> > > IETF IPv6 working groups. The deadline for comments was 31st
January 2000.
> > >
> > > On 29th March, the RIRs, chairs of the IPv6 related IETF working
> > > groups and 6bone particpants met in Adelaide. The purpose of the
meeting
> > > was to expand and elaborate in person on the comments made by the
> > > IAB/IETF/6bone concerning the existing policy document.
> > >
> > > One of the issues of concern that had been previously raised by
> > > members is the size of the end-site prefix (the 'SLA ID',
currently
> > > defined in rfc2374 as 16 bits at a /48). This includes *all* types
> > > of end-sites including a single device. A /48 is sufficient
address
> > > space to create 64K of subnets.
> > >
> > > The technical motivation for the 16 bit SLA ID field and the
> > > 'one size fits all' principle was described in rfc2374 as:
> > >
> > >   "The size of the Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field is 16
bits.
> > >    This supports 65,535 individual subnets per site.  The design
goal
> > >    for the size of this field was to be sufficient for all but the
> > >    largest of organizations.  Organizations which need additional
> > >    subnets can arrange with the organization they are obtaining
Internet
> > >    service from to obtain additional site identifiers and use this
to
> > >    create additional subnets.
> > >
> > >    The Site-Level Aggregation Identifier field was given a fixed
size in
> > >    order to force the length of all prefixes identifying a
particular
> > >    site to be the same length (i.e., 48 bits).  This facilitates
> > >    movement of sites in the topology (e.g., changing service
providers
> > >    and multi-homing to multiple service providers)."
> > >
> > > It is possible to imagine in future a variety of types of
end-sites
> > > being connected to the Internet.  Some of these devices will be
part
> > > of routed networks and others will not.  The question proposed is
whether
> > > 'one size fits all' (the /48) is appropriate for all end-sites?
> > >
> > > Both the RIPE and ARIN communities have rejected this.
> > >
> > > APNIC has been asked to consult with the Internet community in the
> > > Asia Pacific on this issue.
> > >
> > > To date, there has been no consensus on what alternatives should
be
> > > taken, but 3 different approaches have been identified in addition
to
> > > the 16 bit SLA ID field specified in rfc2374.
> > >
> > > These are:
> > >
> > > 1) /64 for single devices (such as mobile phones), /48 for all
other sites
> > >
> > > 2) /64 for single devices, /48 for large end sites which need more
> > >    than 256 subnets, and /56 for other sites (eg small,
domestic/home sites)
> > >
> > > 3) Assign what is needed for the forseeable needs of the site, as
a
> > >    variable-length prefix of between /48 and /64. (It is important
to
> > >    remember that for any site that becomes multi-homed it is
necessary to
> > >    use equal length prefixes from each provider even in the case
where
> > >    one provider has allocated more prefix space than the other).
> > >
> > > We are interested in your opinions, so that we may convey this to
the
> > > other RIRs and to the IETF community. Please direct all follow up
> > > discussion and comments to <sig-ipv6@apnic.net>. For details of
> > > how to subscribe to this mailing list, please visit our web site
at:
> > > http://www.apnic.net/general.html#mailing-lists .
> > >
> > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
> > > APNIC Secretariat
> > > <secretariat@apnic.net>
> > >                                                      Tel:
+61-7-3367-0490
> > > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Ltd  Fax:
+61-7-3367-0482
> > > Level 1, 33 Park Road, PO Box 2131, Milton, QLD 4064, Australia
> > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
> > >
> > > *            APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC
*
> > > * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to
apnic-announce-request@apnic.net *
> >
> > --
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Stephen Burley         "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is
bliss,
> > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster            you can have a pretty good life
> > Stephenb@uk.uu.net            if you're stupid and willing to wait"
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> > IPng Home Page:                     http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> > FTP archive:                     ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Burley         "If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss,
UUNET EMEA Hostmaster            you can have a pretty good life
[SB855-RIPE]                 if you're stupid and willing to wait"
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------_=_NextPart_001_01BFE80B.FC30E3D0-- * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107692; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:56 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107626 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01508 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001384; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27840 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17458 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:37:40 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12809 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:37:40 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma012801; Mon, 10 Jul 00 20:37:27 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA86784; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:37:29 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:37:29 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007101037.UAA86784@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Joao Luis Silva Damas ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Mon Jul 10 20:37:27 2000 Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA86775 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:37:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [193.0.1.195] (dhcp195.ripe.net [193.0.1.195]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17909; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:36:28 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: joao@mailhost.ripe.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com> References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net> <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:36:04 +0200 To: Brian E Carpenter , Stephen Burley From: Joao Luis Silva Damas Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Cc: Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, richardj@arin.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Brian, At 10:29 -0500 7/7/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ...snip... > > A /64 for dialup >> is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not >>going to be >> enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large >>lan behind it. > >Indeed. But that isn't an issue the RIRs need to think about. It is not the RIRs trying to force variable length prefixes. At the RIPE meeting in Budapest and the ARIN meeting in Calgary we reported what the outcome of conversations with IETF people was (the /48, /56, /64 options for allocation). This seemed to be a reasonable way of doing it for the IPv6/ngtrans IETF people and to the RIR people present in Adelaide. At both the ARIN and RIPE meetings, ISPs (the people who will use the address space, after all) were the ones that suggested variable length prefixes for allocation and the RIRs must go by the community consensus (BTW, at the RIPE meeting no consensus was reached, with both the variable length and the 3 fixed lengths having supporters). A second issue is to think about a way of getting the IETF IPv6 people and the 3 RIR communities to talk to each other at the same, otherwise we are entering a loop, with at least 4 separate discussions and each dependant on the other 3. Joao > Brian * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:38:56 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107654; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:53 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107598 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01466 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001368; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27776 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11323 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:42:57 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06834 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:42:56 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006832; Sat, 8 Jul 00 02:42:36 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA99333; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:42:39 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:42:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071642.CAA99333@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 02:42:37 2000 Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA99327 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:42:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21626; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:42:15 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine01.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.41]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA24104; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:42:25 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <39660803.C8EECA45@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 11:40:35 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Chown CC: Steve Deering , Francis Dupont , stephenb@uk.uu.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tim Chown wrote: ... > I would be interested to know what the addressing requirements of a mobile > provider would be, in terms of scale and subnetting. What would the > "home prefix" of 1,000,000 Vodaphone customers be, for example? I've > not yet seen a draft IPv6 allocation policy for a mobile provider. Good question but it's certainly not a problem unless needlessly restrictive allocation policies make it so. 1M is a small number in IPv6 land. Brian * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:38:57 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107698; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:57 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107586 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01510 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001377; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27812 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12765 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:05:10 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07476 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:05:10 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007470; Sat, 8 Jul 00 04:04:41 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA101111; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:04:44 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:04:44 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071804.EAA101111@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Robert Elz ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 04:04:43 2000 Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (munnari.OZ.AU [128.250.1.21]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA101107 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:04:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU ([128.250.1.5]) by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.59) id SA30462; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:03:55 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU) From: Robert Elz To: Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl Cc: Tim Chown , ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:04:47 +0200." Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:03:55 +1000 Message-Id: <19742.962993035@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:04:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl Message-ID: | A university might have a dialup service for its employees and students. If they're really acting as an ISP, then they should be treated as an ISP, and get an ISP sized number space. On the other hand, many universities do this kind of thing now (in fact, I am using such a link right now) and the numbering is just taken from part of the university's number space . That should work just the same for IPv6. kre * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:38:55 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107655; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:54 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107594 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01489 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001372; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27792 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA11528 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:58:00 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06949 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:57:59 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma006945; Sat, 8 Jul 00 02:57:57 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA99654; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:57:59 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:57:59 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071657.CAA99654@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Ignatios Souvatzis ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 02:57:58 2000 Received: from theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (theory.cs.uni-bonn.de [131.220.4.211]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA99646 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:57:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ignatios@localhost) by theory.cs.uni-bonn.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA18164; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:57:50 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:57:50 +0200 From: Ignatios Souvatzis Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Message-ID: <20000707185750.C25625@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de> References: <200007071556.JAA01092@hunkular.glarp.com> <16970.962986557@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <16970.962986557@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU>; from kre@munnari.OZ.AU on Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 02:15:57AM +1000 On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 02:15:57AM +1000, Robert Elz wrote: > Except that IEEE has created 64 bit MAC identifiers for use by its > new protocols, and /80 would kill easy autoconf. Of course. > For sure, /80 > (even /96) leaves way too many addresses for any conceivable subnet > to ever use them all - For traditional subnets, you're right, but... assuming everybody could afford (at least) on phone, IP(v6) over the NMBA network called "the world-wide phone system" already would need more then 2^32 addresses, right? /80 would be a problem even for all phones in Germany. Regards, Ignatios * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 15:39:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA107706; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:39:00 +1000 (EST) From: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA107606 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01509 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma001376; Tue, 11 Jul 00 15:23:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (paulg@localhost) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27808 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12433 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:01:10 +1000 (EST) X-Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07427 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:01:10 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma007425; Sat, 8 Jul 00 04:01:08 +1000 X-Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA100904; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:01:08 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:01:08 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007071801.EAA100904@whois.apnic.net> To: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Robert Elz ] Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk >From owner-sig-ipv6 Sat Jul 8 04:01:04 2000 Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (munnari.OZ.AU [128.250.1.21]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA100885 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:01:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU ([128.250.1.5]) by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.59) id SA30400; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 04:00:43 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU) From: Robert Elz To: Ignatios Souvatzis Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:57:50 +0200." <20000707185750.C25625@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:43 +1000 Message-Id: <19698.962992843@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:57:50 +0200 From: Ignatios Souvatzis Message-ID: <20000707185750.C25625@theory.cs.uni-bonn.de> This is a non-issue, because we're not doing this, but ... | assuming everybody could afford (at least) on phone, IP(v6) over the NMBA | network called "the world-wide phone system" already would need more then | 2^32 addresses, right? That's going to depend upon whether there is internal structure in that numbering, aside from what is in the phone numbers already. 2^32 is probably too small for that particular subnet, but ... | /80 would be a problem even for all phones in Germany. Germany really has more than 2^48 phones? Or even more than a 2^48 phone number space? That's a 15 (decimal) digit phone number space. In any case, the 2^64 space allocated for subnets is easily going to be big enough to map the POTS number space, should anyone actually want to do that. kre * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Tue Jul 11 18:28:32 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA111563; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:28:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA111556 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:28:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 24942 invoked by uid 0); 11 Jul 2000 08:28:24 -0000 Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (HELO laptoy-dfk.ripe.net) (193.0.1.98) by postman.ripe.net with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 08:28:24 -0000 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000711102210.00d18220@localhost.ripe.net> X-Sender: dfk@localhost.ripe.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:28:01 +0200 To: Brian E Carpenter From: Daniel Karrenberg Subject: [sig-ipv6] Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision Cc: Joao Luis Silva Damas , Stephen Burley , Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, richardj@arin.net In-Reply-To: <396A00F4.7C95A15D@hursley.ibm.com> References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net> <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 06:59 PM 7/10/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >Of course we should talk, the next opportunity is the Pittsburgh IETF. > >However, let's be careful about deducing general policy from what today's >ISPs believe, based on IPv4 experience. Things are truly different >in IPv6. > > Brian Brian, we - the RIRs - are in no position to tell the ISPs that they are stupid and that they "don't understand". I think even the mighty IAB should be a little careful before going that route; it is the ISPs, after all, who convert integers to address space by routing traffic based on it. Policies will change as we go along and all those involved understand more and get more comfortable with things. Daniel * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Wed Jul 12 00:41:31 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA118140; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:41:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA118135 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:41:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA114430; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:40:59 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine02.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.42]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA17600; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:41:08 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <396B313F.644AE1E5@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:37:51 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Karrenberg CC: Joao Luis Silva Damas , Stephen Burley , Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, richardj@arin.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy DocumentRevision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net> <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20000711102210.00d18220@localhost.ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > At 06:59 PM 7/10/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >Of course we should talk, the next opportunity is the Pittsburgh IETF. > > > >However, let's be careful about deducing general policy from what today's > >ISPs believe, based on IPv4 experience. Things are truly different > >in IPv6. > > > > Brian > > Brian, > > we - the RIRs - are in no position to tell the ISPs that they are stupid and > that they "don't understand". I think even the mighty IAB should be a little > careful before going that route; it is the ISPs, after all, who convert > integers to address space by routing traffic based on it. > > Policies will change as we go along and all those involved understand more and > get more comfortable with things. Indeed, my words that you quote were written to avoid insulting the ISP's intelligence and experience... but IPv6 is truly different. Brian * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Wed Jul 12 02:16:59 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA69392; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:16:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA69378 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:16:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10882 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:16:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mg-206253200-166.ricochet.net(206.253.200.166) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma010852; Wed, 12 Jul 00 01:15:41 +1000 Received: from randy by roam.psg.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 13C1he-0000yU-00; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:12:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Randy Bush To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Daniel Karrenberg , Joao Luis Silva Damas , Stephen Burley , Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, richardj@arin.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy DocumentRevision References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org> <39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net> <3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <3965A5F0.8505E7BA@uk.uu.net> <3965F75D.E9B4FF6A@hursley.ibm.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20000711102210.00d18220@localhost.ripe.net> <396B313F.644AE1E5@hursley.ibm.com> Message-Id: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:12:06 -0700 Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk > Indeed, my words that you quote were written to avoid insulting the ISP's > intelligence and experience... but IPv6 is truly different. yes. it's not deployed. and to get it deployed, as bernard just said well on the ietf list, we need to make it *significantly* more attractive than the status quo, like five times as attractive. one attraction could be address space. and ipv6 has a lot of it, though, having been through some decades in this game it is hard to believe that this year's effectively-infinite will not be next year's (or decade's) joke. so it would be nice if we could have an ipv6 address space allocation policy which allowed users to perceive the benefits of the larger address space. and, imiho, we should err on the side of generosity. but we should not forget that we have four more wonderful marvels of ipv6 to find if we want it to sell. randy * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Fri Jul 14 00:51:38 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA114297; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:51:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk ([132.146.16.82]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA114291 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:51:34 +1000 (EST) From: stuart.prevost@bt.com Received: from cbtlipnt01.btlabs.bt.co.uk by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:49:28 +0100 Received: by cbtlipnt01.btlabs.bt.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id <3GLQTNG3>; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:49:25 +0100 Message-ID: <5104D4DBC598D211B5FE0000F8FE7EB207413A2D@mbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk> To: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, mir@ripe.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, richardj@arin.net, Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:47:30 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk All, From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!! I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE meeting. Now, if the /48 allocation is the way to proceed, I feel that all initial /35 allocations should be initially changed to /29 as the first step. This can be done easily as all allocations have the /29 reserved to ensure a contiguous block. However a /29 allows for 524,288 /48, again if the whole subTLA is used. So at the same time the 80% utilisation section of the document needs to be worded correctly to allow ISPs to apply for subsequent subTLA's. Also I would like to ask the following question: How do we move from the current allocations of /29 & /35 to RFC2374 (IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format) and at what stage will this happen? Otherwise I can see organisations holding multiple subTLA before moving to the address structure in RFC2374, and more renumbering pain. Regards, Stuart Stuart Prevost --------------------------------------------------- IP Specialist, Futures Testbed Tel: +44 1473 646891 Fax: +44 1473 643906 Mobile: +44 7801 977290 Email: stuart.prevost@bt.com Addr: B29/136 - Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich. Suffolk. IP5 3RE * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Fri Jul 14 02:33:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA125878; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:33:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from moebius2.Space.Net (moebius2.Space.Net [195.30.1.100]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA125869 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:33:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 63213 invoked by uid 1007); 13 Jul 2000 16:33:43 -0000 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:33:43 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: stuart.prevost@bt.com Cc: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, mir@ripe.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, richardj@arin.net, Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] Re: IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion Message-ID: <20000713183343.P89890@Space.Net> References: <5104D4DBC598D211B5FE0000F8FE7EB207413A2D@mbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <5104D4DBC598D211B5FE0000F8FE7EB207413A2D@mbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk>; from stuart.prevost@bt.com on Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 03:47:30PM +0100 X-NCC-RegID: de.space Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hi, On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 03:47:30PM +0100, stuart.prevost@bt.com wrote: > From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the > *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to > proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today > would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the > subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other > providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!! > > I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer > as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE > meeting. Exactly this was the reason from our side for welcoming the /48, /56, /64 suggestion: having more "elbow space" in the /35 allocated to us, being able to do reasobale NLA structuring (to our resellers, and to *their* resellers). regards, Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Fri Jul 14 07:50:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA80088; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:50:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA80083 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:49:59 +1000 (EST) From: george.tsirtsis@bt.com Received: from cbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:49:38 +0100 Received: by cbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) id <3GKHCJ9G>; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:49:35 +0100 Message-ID: <5104D4DBC598D211B5FE0000F8FE7EB2078A59F9@mbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk> To: stuart.prevost@bt.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, mir@ripe.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, richardj@arin.net, Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] RE: (ngtrans) IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:47:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.88) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk Just to complement Stuart's position > -----Original Message----- > From: stuart.prevost@bt.com [SMTP:stuart.prevost@bt.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 3:48 PM > To: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com; ipv6-wg@ripe.net; mir@ripe.net; > ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com; sig-ipv6@apnic.net; richardj@arin.net; > Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net; joao@ripe.net > Subject: (ngtrans) IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion > From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!! > I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer > as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last > RIPE > meeting. > > Note that we recognise the benefits of /48 for multihoming/rehomeing and maybe more importantly to make sure that IPv6 NAT will *never* become a reality! Thus, as an ISP, we support /48 allocations if can be confident that we can get enough of them; i.e.: we get /29s instead of /35s. > Now, if the /48 allocation is the way to proceed, I feel that all > initial /35 allocations should be initially changed to /29 as the first > step. This can be done easily as all allocations have the /29 reserved to > ensure a contiguous block. However a /29 allows for 524,288 /48, again if > the whole subTLA is used. So at the same time the 80% utilisation section > of the document needs to be worded correctly to allow ISPs to apply for > subsequent subTLA's. > That is: the 80% (or whatever utilisation) to refer to the number of /48s in a subTLA since ISPs will have no control over how and when our customers, home users, SOHOs, mobile users are going to utilise their /48 prefix! Regards George * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Fri Jul 14 07:51:40 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA80111; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:51:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA80107 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:51:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA32046; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:50:35 +0100 Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine02.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.42]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA18482; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:50:54 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <396E3123.20A1BCE0@hursley.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:14:11 -0500 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gert Doering CC: stuart.prevost@bt.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, mir@ripe.net, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, richardj@arin.net, Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net Subject: [sig-ipv6] Re: IPv6 Policy Document Revision suggestion References: <5104D4DBC598D211B5FE0000F8FE7EB207413A2D@mbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk> <20000713183343.P89890@Space.Net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk Now we're getting to the point I think. We are messing around doing slow start and sub-allocations inside sub-TLAs, ignoring that fact that all the sub-TLAs together only eat up one TLA, and we have thousands of TLAs available. There is no need to impose these artificial constraints on the ISPs. Brian Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 03:47:30PM +0100, stuart.prevost@bt.com wrote: > > From reading all the emails it seems that the /48 approach as the > > *minimum* allocation is the way the IETF would like IPv6 deployment to > > proceed. However, as it has been demonstrated, the /35 allocations today > > would only allow for 8,192 /48 per subTLA, and this is assuming that the > > subTLA holder hasn't split up the NLA block so they can allocate to other > > providers, in which case this figure could be as small as 256 or lower!!!! > > > > I see this as the reason why ISPs consider /48 for a home customer > > as too large, and hence the sliding-window & /56 discussion at the last RIPE > > meeting. > > Exactly this was the reason from our side for welcoming the /48, /56, /64 > suggestion: having more "elbow space" in the /35 allocated to us, being > able to do reasobale NLA structuring (to our resellers, and to *their* > resellers). > > regards, > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > SpaceNet GmbH Mail: netmaster@Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net * From owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Mon Jul 31 22:05:04 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA89740; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:05:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from bert.knoware.nl ([195.64.32.24]) by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA89727 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:05:00 +1000 (EST) From: tommy54_87@abierto.co.jp Received: from winkel.sale.nl (winkel.sale.nl [195.64.40.34]) by bert.knoware.nl (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e6VC4ie29986 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:04:44 +0200 Received: from monorailpc (unverified [216.77.217.174]) by winkel.sale.nl (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:25:35 +0200 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:25:35 +0200 Message-ID: To: tommy54_87@abierto.co.jp Subject: [sig-ipv6] Do You Remember? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Sender: owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk So, How have you been? Do you remember holding previous conversations regarding business and money-making opportunities. I did not send this to you in error! You said: "If only I could find an easier way to make a higher income" and "If I had more money, I could spend more time with my Family, and less time at work" and "I sure could use more money so I could pay off my bills once and for all!" and "I would love to get involved in a business which will generate money while I am not at work (like a Gas Pump)" Dear Friend, There is a possibility that we haven't met, but you were chosen by someone to receive this E-Mail because you are a motivated person. PLEASE, do yourself a favor and PRINT THIS! Read it thoroughly! Be sure that you don't miss any of the points. Then put it down and walk away. THEN READ IT AGAIN! I am sending you a lot of information that is hard to absorb the first time you read it. If you don't believe this program will work for you, send it to 10-20 of your closest friends you trust and ask them what they think. THIS REALLY WORKS! Have the faith, and don't miss this opportunity! GET INVOLVED and it will work for you as it does for us!!!!! Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, A MAJOR NIGHTLY NEWS Program recently dedicated entire show to the investigation of the program described below to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved that there are absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results have been truly remarkable! So many people are participating that those involved are doing much better than ever before! Since everyone makes more as more people try it out, its been very exciting! You will understand ONLY if you get involved! ********* THE ENTIRE PLAN IS HERE BELOW ********* *** PRINT THIS NOW FOR FUTURE REFERENCE!! *** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make AT LEAST $50,000 in less than 90 days--READ ON! (If not, forward this to someone who would like to make this kind of money....... It works as designed, but only for those who follow it to the letter!) Please read this program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY!! It does NOT require you to come into contact with people, either directly or by phone. Just follow the instructions, and you WILL make money. This simplified e-mail marketing program works perfectly 100% EVERY TIME! E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this virtually free method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the greater the competition!! Get your piece of this action NOW!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello - My name is Johnathon Rourke, I'm from Rhode Island. The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. Two years ago, the corporation I worked for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life. I am writing to share the experience in hopes that this could change your life FOREVER! FINANCIALLY$$$!!! In mid December, I received this program in my e-mail. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they would work. But as I was saying, in December of 1997 I received this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list! THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly, I couldn't believe my eyes! Here was a MONEY MAKING MACHINE I could start immediately without any debt. Like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! After determining the program was LEGAL I decided "WHY NOT!?!??" Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any money for printing to send out the program, and, because I also send the product (reports) by e-mail, my only expense is my time! In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1! By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. My first step in making $50,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO! ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY. RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2--96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 10,000, I received $58,000 with more coming in every day! I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car! Please take your time to read this plan. IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER$!!! Remember, it won't work if YOU don't try it! This program DOES work, BUT you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won't work and you'll lose out on A LOT of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and YOU WILL MAKE $50,000 or more in 90 days! I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! $$ Sincerely, Johnathon Rourke ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate... because many of you know from first-hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich"-- inflation will see to that! You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have retired from the program after sending thousands and thousands of programs. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000...and your name will be on everyone of them! REMEMBER though, ----- the MORE YOU SEND OUT, the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and OPPORTUNITY to become FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT! IT IS UP TO YOU!! NOW DO IT!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BEFORE YOU delete this program from your in-box, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a LOT OF MONEY! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. $$$ IT WORKS!!! $$$ Jody Jacobs Richmond, VA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR$$$$!!!! This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use up to $50,000 or more in the next 90 days! Before you say "BULL... ", please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making business. As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi-level business partners, and we sell and deliver a product for EVERY dollar received. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the EASIEST marketing plan anywhere! It is simply order filling by email! ******************************************************************* The product is informational and instructional material, keys to the secrets for everyone on how to open the doors to the magic world of E-COMMERCE , the information highway, the wave of the future! PLAN SUMMARY: (1) You order the 4 reports listed below ($5 each) They come to you by email. (2) SAVE A COPY OF THIS ENTIRE LETTER and put your name after Report #1. Move the other names down. (3) Via the internet, access Yahoo.com or any of the other major search engines to locate hundreds of bulk email service companies (search for "bulk email") and have them send 25,000 - 50,000 emails for you (about $49+). (4) Orders will come to you by postal mail - simply email them the Report they ordered. Let me ask you - isn't this about as easy as it gets?!?!?! ******************************************************************* By the way there are over 50 MILLION email addresses with millions more joining the internet each year so don't worry about "running out" or "saturation". People are used to seeing and hearing the same advertisements every day on radio/TV. How many times have you received the same pizza flyers on your door? Then one day you are hungry for pizza and you order one. Same thing with this letter. I received this letter many times - then one day I decided it was time to try it. ******************************************************************* YOU CAN START TODAY - JUST DO THESE EASY STEPS: STEP #1. ORDER THE FOUR REPORTS Order the four reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). -- For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! Within a few days you will receive, by e-mail, each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so you can send them to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. STEP #2. ADD YOUR MAILING ADDRESS TO THIS LETTER a. Look below for the listing of the four reports. b. After you've ordered the four reports, delete the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle. c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you COPY ALL INFORMATION, every name and address, ACCURATELY! STEP #3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to these instructions. Now you are ready to use this entire email to send by email to prospects. Report #1 will tell you how to download bulk email software and email addresses so you can send it out to thousands of people while you sleep! Remember that 50,000+ new people are joining the internet every month. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $20 and initial bulk mailing cost). You obviously already have a computer and an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes. We'll also assume that you, and all those involved, email out only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a 0.5% response. The response could be much better! Also, many people will email out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000 (Why stop at 2000?). But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those 0.5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The 0.5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 10,000 $5 bills for you. CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5,000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET Advertising on the internet is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the Internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Look how this small number accumulates to achieve the STAGGERING results below: 1st level--your first 10 send you $5 .....................$50 2nd level--10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100)...........$500 3rd level--10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1,000)......$5,000 4th level--10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10,000)..$50,000 $$$$$$ THIS TOTALS -----------------------------------$55,550 $$$$$$ AMAZING ISN'T IT? Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100's of participants and many will continue to work this program, sending out programs WITH YOUR NAME ON THEM for YEARS! THINK ABOUT IT! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People are going to get emails about this plan from YOU or SOMEBODY ELSE and many will work this plan - the question is - Don't you want YOUR NAME to be on the emails they will send out? * * * DON'T MISS OUT!!! * * * JUST TRY IT ONCE!!! * * * * * SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!! *** YOU'LL BE AMAZED!!!* * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out with YOUR name and address on it will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GET STARTED TODAY: PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THE FOUR REPORTS NOW. Notes: -- ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT. CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in TWO sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper write: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering (b) your e-mail address, and (c) your name & postal address. REPORT #1a "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1a FROM: Charles P. Liles P.O. Box 1434 Midlothian, VA 23113 NOTE: I, (and every member listed below), am DEDICATED to helping you with this program so it will work for you also. This IS a TEAM EFFORT! We communicate by email and even by phone! TRY US! REPORT #2a "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2a FROM: Cliff Chancey 1008 Kensington Cr Knoxville TN 37919 REPORT #3a "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3a FROM: Betty Sandridge P.O. Box 4404 Roanoke Va 24015 REPORT #4a "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4a FROM: Bill/Evelyn Pope 1302 Brittle Creek Drive Matthews, NC 28105 ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. -- Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. It is required for this to be a legal business and they need the reports to send out their letters (with your name on them!) -- ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. -- Be patient and persistent with this program - If you follow the instructions exactly - results WILL FOLLOW. $$$$ ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT#2. If you don't, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. To generate MORE INCOME, simply send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program, please answer one question. ARE YOU HAPPY WITH YOUR PRESENT INCOME OR JOB? If the answer is no, then please look at the following FACTS about this SUPER SIMPLE MLM program: 1. NO face to face selling, NO meetings, NO inventory! NO Telephone calls, NO big cost to start!, Nothing to learn, NO skills needed! (Surely you know how to send email?) 2. No equipment to buy - you already have a computer and internet connection - so you have everything you need to fill orders! 3. You are selling a product which does NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE OR SHIP! (Emailing copies of the reports is FREE!) 4. All of your customers pay you in CA$H! This program will change your LIFE FOREVER!! Look at the potential for you to be able to quit your job and live a life of luxury you could only dream about! Imagine getting out of debt and buying the car and home of your dreams! Imagine being able to work a super-high paying LEISURELY EASY BUSINES FROM HOME! $$$ FINALLY MAKE SOME DREAMS COME TRUE! $$$ ACT NOW! Take your first step toward achieving financial independence. Order the reports and follow the program outlined above-- SUCCESS will be your reward! Thank you for your time and consideration. PLEASE NOTE: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal Agency) 1-800-827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax reuirements. Your earnings are highly dependent on your activities and advertising. The information contained on this site and in the report constitutes no guarantees stated nor implied. In the event that it is determined that this site or report constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. The earnings amounts listed on this site and in the report are estimates only. If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington, DC. ================================================ Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. This is a one time e-mail transmission. No request for removal is necessary * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net *