[LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
Tue Jul 19 13:22:33 BRT 2005
Marcelo,
Por lo que tengo entendido todas las regiones se siguen valiendo por el mismo
criterio de forma de poder luego evaluar correctamente el HD Ratio para futuras
asignaciones.
El problema no es solamente el tema de privacidad/competencia, pero tambien
un tema operacional. Si un operador hoy en dia tuviera que registrar cada
cliente DSL, Cable, celular en el Whois genera una sobrecarga administrativa
importante (especialmente si no hay swips y hay que ingresarlos a traves
de un formario web).
Roque
>-- Mensaje original --
>Cc: lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org, politicas at lacnic.net
>From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>
>Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:00:05 +0200
>To: rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
>
>
>Hola Roque,
>
>no he seguido muy de cerca este ultimo tema que mencionas, pero creo
>recordar que en otras regiones solucionaron esto dejando a discrecion
>del ISP si poner o no en el WHOIS los datos de los clientes finales,
>por lo que no me queda claro que esto sea un problema grave, pero como
>dije no estoy muy puesto en esto, asi que si me podes corregir...?
>
>saludos, marcelo
>
>
>
>El 19/07/2005, a las 2:10, rgaglian at adinet.com.uy escribió:
>
>> Creo que un punto que no podemos perder desde el punto de vista de los
>
>> operadores
>> es que si se mantiene el /48 como unidad de asignación, se deberá
>> registrar
>> a cada usuario residencial (ADSL, etc) en la base de datos Whois, con
>> el
>> correspondiente costo administrativo y con un agravamiento de los
>> problemas
>> de confidencialidad ya planteados en esta lista.
>>
>> Roque
>>
>>> -- Mensaje original --
>>> Cc: lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org, politicas at lacnic.net
>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>
>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd:
>>> I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>>> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:52:02 +0200
>>> To: rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
>>>
>>>
>>> Hola Roque,
>>>
>>> si, a mi me parece un disparate tambien
>>>
>>> tener en cuenta que la eficiencia requerida resultante del uso del HD
>>> ratio para un /19 es de 1,8%!!!!
>>>
>>> ademas, en draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt se lantea
>>> un ejemplo que me parece ilustrar muy bien tu preocupacion, lo
>>> transcribo para uds.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.1. An example: Cable Modem/DSL Service in US
>>>
>>> In the hallway at a recent ARIN meeting, I was cornered by someone
>>> who had done a back-of-the envelope calculation that led him to
>>> believe the current policies needed adjustment. The argument went
>>> like:
>>>
>>> If I assign 4M /48Ç«÷s of IPv6 (one to each cable modem on my
>>> network), according to the HD-ratio I am justified to obtain
>>> something around a /20 of IPv6 addresses. In other words, I am
>>> justified in getting 268M /48Ç«÷s even though I am only using 4M
>>
>>> of
>>> them. That would be enough for me to assign at least two for
>>> every household in the US (not just the 19M on my network).
>>>
>>> Now if all the cable providers (e.g., Comcast, Cox, Adelphia,
>>> Cablevision, Time-Warner, etc.) did the same for their networks;
>>> and each of the DSL companies made a similar move (SBC, Verizon,
>>> Quest, etc.); perhaps we could easily see the broadband market
>>> in
>>> the US alone obtaining some 16 /20Ç«÷s of IPv6 or a total of
>>> /16.
>>> There are only 8192 of those available in the current global
>>> unicast space of 2001::/3.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, you can see where this might lead...
>>>
>>>
>>> Saludos, marcelo
>>>
>>> PD: este tema se esta discutiendo en la lista global-v6
>>> global-v6 mailing list
>>> global-v6 at lists.apnic.net
>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>>> seria bueno que enviaramos nuestros comentarios ahi, de forma que las
>>> opiniones del lacnic tambien se tomen en cuenta
>>>
>>>
>>> El 17/07/2005, a las 6:56, rgaglian at adinet.com.uy escribió:
>>>
>>>> Marcelo,
>>>>
>>>> Hace tiempo que queria contestarte este correo con un comentario que
>>>> he escuchado
>>>> más de una vez.
>>>>
>>>> ¿¿¿Cómo hizo D-Telecom para justificar un /19???
>>>>
>>>> No he estudiado mucho las políticas actuales de RIPE pero claramente
>>>> se desprende
>>>> del resto de los RIR por estos bloques gigantes de direcciones
>>>> asignados
>>>> a algunos proveedores.
>>>>
>>>> Un /19 se podría dividir en 539 millones de /48. Es mi impresión que
>>>> el plan
>>>> de numeración que utilizaron (y amparados en el RFC vigente) da un
>>>> /48
>>>
>>>> a
>>>> cada usuario DSL y A CADA CELULAR.
>>>>
>>>> Lo que es interesante es que el draft, a primera vista, no estudia la
>>
>>>> asignación
>>>> de direcciones para empresas celulares/moviles.
>>>>
>>>> Un abrazo
>>>>
>>>> Roque
>>>>
>>>>> -- Mensaje original --
>>>>> To: lactf at lac.ipv6tf.org, politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:39:33 +0200
>>>>> Subject: [LACNIC/Politicas] Fwd: I-D
>>>>> ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> fyi
>>>>>
>>>>> Inicio mensaje reenviado:
>>>>>
>>>>>> De: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
>>>>>> Fecha: 12 de julio de 2005 21:50:03 GMT+02:00
>>>>>> Para: i-d-announce at ietf.org
>>>>>> Asunto: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>>>>>> Responder a: internet-drafts at ietf.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>>>> directories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Title : IPv6 Address Allocation to End Sites
>>>>>> Author(s) : T. Narten, et al.
>>>>>> Filename : draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt
>>>>>> Pages : 8
>>>>>> Date : 2005-7-12
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This document revisits the IAB/IESG recommendations on the
>>>>>> assignment
>>>>>> of IPv6 address space to end sites. Specifically, it indicates
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> changing the default end-site assignment for typical home and
>>>>>> SOHO
>>>>>> sites from /48 to /56 is consistent with the goals of IPv6 and
>>>>>> RFC
>>>>>> 3177. Although it is for the RIR community to make adjustments
>>>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> IPv6 address space allocation and end site assignment policies,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> IETF community would be comfortable with RIRs changing the
>>>>>> default
>>>>>> assignment size to /56 for smaller end sites. This document
>>>>>> obsoletes
>>>>>> RFC 3177 and reclassifies it as historic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis
>>>>>> -48boundary-00.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> i-d-announce-request at ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body
>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>> the message.
>>>>>> You can also visit
>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
>>>>>> to change your subscription settings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
>>>>>> username
>>>>>> "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging
>>>>>> in,
>>>>>> type "cd internet-drafts" and then
>>>>>> "get draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>>>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send a message to:
>>>>>> mailserv at ietf.org.
>>>>>> In the body type:
>>>>>> "FILE
>>>>>> /internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
>>>>>> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
>>>>>> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
>>>>>> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
>>>>>> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail
>>>>>> readers
>>>>>> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
>>>>>> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
>>>>>> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
>>>>>> how to manipulate these messages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>>>>>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>>>>>> Internet-Draft.
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>>>>> Content-ID: <2005-7-12130012.I-D at ietf.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>>>>> I-D-Announce at ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>> http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>
>>>> Ing.Roque Gagliano
>>>> rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>> http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ing.Roque Gagliano
>> rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Politicas mailing list
>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>> http://www.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>
>
Ing.Roque Gagliano
rgaglian at adinet.com.uy
More information about the Politicas
mailing list