[6bone] Re: RFC 2772 input from RIR space holder

[Pim van Pelt]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:26:57PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
| Hi,
| 
| On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:04:39PM +0000, Tim Chown wrote:
| > Again I'm just reporting experience.  I know of NRENs who have not applied
| > for 2001: allocations because they do not have 200 customers (universities).
| > They should not have to be "creative" to apply; there is no reason why 
| > an NREN with 60 univesities should not receive a SubTLA.
Tim,

There has to be some demonstrated need for an allocation that is large enough
to sustain several assignments to downstreams. If entities that are too small
(which is extremely hard to define) were to be able to request subTLAs, we
might start over-allocating, eg one /32 per 100 end-sites will get us in
trouble in 10 years. We should think this through very well. At least it's
become somewhat easier since 01/07/2002 and I'm very happy to see that the
policies have been adopted worldwide regardless of service region.

Gert said:
| I'm mainly waiting for some decent proposal that includes NRENs and 
| major transit-only networks (like NORDunet) but is on the other hand
| precise enough to not permit "any single enterprise that claims to 
| be 'very important'" to get an sTLA.
| 
| I wouldn't really mind if every LIR gets one (1) sTLA, but the last
| round of discussion has shown that neither the ARIN nor the APNIC
| people are willing to accept this very relaxed policy.
This opens the way for enterprises to gain their solution to the multihoming
problems easily in the RIPE region and for a small fee (membership of a
'small' type LIR at RIPE is not that expensive). I am still scared that
enterprises are gathering pTLAs to solve their problem of having to have
an upstream provider.

There's (at least) two groups here: 
(1) the companies that do not find decent connectivity in their direct area 
and therefor wish to have their own pTLA.
(2) the companies that do not wish to be dependant on another company for
their connectivity (political, multihomed, but also vanity).

If you grant every LIR an sTLA, you might end up with a bunch of companies
that become a LIR for the sole purpose of gaining an AS number and IPv4/IPv6
address block to be multihomed in the PA sense. I think we should have at
least some extra rules in place in order to get an AS number and an IPv6
address block.

By the way: the same holds for pTLAs. There should be some demonstrated
need (eg conducting tests or preproduction strategies). Perhaps both
can be quantified somehow. Also, we could discuss an upper bound on pTLA
allocation timeframe (said 24 months).

groet,
Pim
 
-- 
---------- - -    - - -+- - -    - - ----------
Pim van Pelt                 Email: pim@ipng.nl
http://www.ipng.nl/             IPv6 Deployment
-----------------------------------------------