Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] RE: Wg-ipv6-guide digest, Vol 1 #10 - 1 msg

[(Tomohiro -INSTALLER-Fujisaki/$BF#:j(B $BCR9((B )<fujisaki@syce.net>]

Okutani-san,

 | > The number of /48 blocks which each organization has allocated or
 | > assigned is counted based on the database.
 | Do you mean that sub-allocations made to downstream ISPs are
 | considered as utilized, i.e, if a /40(256*/48) is allocated to a
 | downstream ISP, then 256*/48 is considered utilized?
 | 
 | I am aware that this is the case in IPv4 policy but wasn't sure if the
 | same policy applies to IPv6. I assumed it doesn't, but not too
 | confident about my interpretation, so I would like to hear the
 | comments from the others.

I think you mention this part of IPv6 policy document.

----------8<----------8=----------8<----------8=----------8<----------
5.3. LIR-to-ISP allocation

There is no specific policy for an organization (LIR) to allocate
address space to subordinate ISPs. Each LIR organization may develop
its own policy for subordinate ISPs to encourage optimum utilization
of the total address block allocated to the LIR.

However, all /48 assignments to end sites are required to be
registered either by the LIR or its subordinate ISPs in such a way
that the RIR/NIR can properly evaluate the HD-Ratio when a subsequent
allocation becomes necessary.
----------8<----------8=----------8<----------8=----------8<----------

My interpretation is same as yours (bellow).

 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |  - If a sub-allocation is made to a down stream ISP, but not
 |    assignments are registered in the database, it will not considered
 |    utilized
 |    e.g.) /40 sub-allocation is made to a downstream ISP. 2*/48 is
 |          assigned from this block. In this case, 2*/48 is considered
 |          as utilized, not /40(256*/48).
 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------


 | In anycase, whichever the interpretation is, I think it is worth
 | noting it in the document since it is quite confusing.

Agreed. 

I think it's helpful to describe clearly as 'this is [same
as/different from IPv4]'.

And if Okutani-san's interpretation is correct, it's better to add the
comment that 'So, LIRs should carefully consider and justify the
sub-allocation size'.  I'm not sure this kind of notification should
be written or not in guidelines document.


This is Okutani-san's previous mail:

 | Also, this should probably go into the initial allocation section, but
 | let me comment on one point which came up to my mind.
 | 
 | It may be worth noting that at the time of the initial allocation
 | request, sub-allocations to downstream ISPs are taken into account as
 | "to be assigned /48".

Does this mean at the initial allocation request, ISPs can take into
account the number of users in down stream ISPs?

Yours sincerely,

--
Tomohiro Fujisaki, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation.