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

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

>  | > I have another question, should LIRs register the allocation greater than
>  | > /48 to RIRs database?
>  | I believe so.
>  | 
>  | Any assignments including and larger than /48 should be registered in
>  | RIR database. If not, RIRs/NIRs cannot confirm the utilization at
>  | subsequent allocations.
>  | 
>  | This may go back to the section on the definition of the site, but I
>  | think we should describe the size required to register in the
>  | database somewhere in the document with specific examples.
> 
> Sorry for my insufficient explanation, but I want to know if a LIR
> should register whole address block allocated to a downstream ISP.
> 
> For example, if a LIR allocate an address block /40 to downstream ISP B,
> then, should the block /40 be registered by the LIR A ?
> 
> If the LIR want to delegate the registration operation related that
> /40 block to ISP B, the address block /40 will be registered (to set
> up 'mnt-lower'). If do not, it not necessary to register /40.  Is both
> OK?
Oh OK, sorry for missing your point. I understand now.

I don't think it is very clear in the policy document, but this is
my personal opinion:

LIRs should register allocations to downstream ISP, but it will not be
counted when calculating the utilization.

e.g) If /40 is allocated to a downstream ISP, then this allocation
     should be registered in RIR/NIR database. However, when
     calculating the utilization, this /40 is not considered as
     utilized by itself.

The reason is, we need to know who to contact in cases of network
abuse, and if a particular range is delegated to a downtream ISP,
then, that information should be made available to the public.

Then again, it could be argued that as long as LIRs look after abuse
complaints, then they do not need to register allocations for their
downstream.

My opinion is not too fixed about this, and would like to hear
opinions from the others too.

Izumi