stla registry db issue

[Brian E Carpenter]

LIRs should **definitely** not split /35s among multiple ISPs. One /35
is for one ISP, with the whole /29 reserved for later expansion.

If NLA1 Z is an ISP, it will be given the whole /35. So why will there be updates? 

With the hierarchical delegation model of IPv6, it is not obvious that
the RIRs actually need any detail beyond who got the /35. We shouldn't blindly
assume that what was done for IPv4 is needed for IPv6. 

  Brian

Kengo NAGAHASHI wrote:
> 
> Folks.
> 
> I have some questions about stla reigstry database.
> 
> In delegating IPv6 stla address for another organizations(upper
> than /48) from Local Internet Registry(LIR),it is need to update
> Regional Internet Registry(RIR)'s database.(It was defined by
> IPv6 policy draft of RIR)
> 
> So the problem is how we should do in following situation.
>                 +----------+
>                 |RIR X(/29)|
>                 +----+-----+
>                      |
>                 +----+-----+
>                 |LIR Y(/35)+
>                 +----+-----+
>                      |
>                 +----+------+
>                 |NLA1 Z(/40)|  NLA1 is assumed to be a kind of
>                 +--------+--+  ISP which allocates IPv6 address
>                          |     for another organizations.
>                    update|
>                      orgA(/48)
> 
> The goal of this figure is that organization A which was allocated
> by NLA1 Z can update RIR X's registry database tranceparency.
> 
> The simplest way of this situation is that org A updates RIR's
> database directly and RIR's "mnt-lower" syntax may help it.
> But in just my opinion,it's not utilized IPv6 hierarchy address
> structure (and is not clarified who will delegate reverse DNS zone).
> 
> In our current rules, org A updates  LIR Y's database once
> and LIR Y registry  will update this information to RIR X's database
>  in hand and also LIR Y registry delegates reverse DNS zone for org A
> in this time.(accutual allocation will be held at 1/1/2000)
> In this method,it takes many human consts if 50 update queries
> are coming per a day.
> 
> So I think it will very helpful that there is some mechanism that can
> make it automatically by sharing registry database or whatever.
> 
> So does anybody know or experiment such situation ? Or is there
> any pointer to refer this matter?
> 
> I think using Referral whois system is one of a solution.But I'm not
> expert in rwhois and never experimenced this in IPv6 hierarchy address.
> 
> regards.
> 
> --
> Kengo Nagahashi
> Keio University/WIDE Project
> kenken@sfc.wide.ad.jp