Re: Re: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing

Let me maybe try to clarify Christopher Martin's point a bit.
I recently went through a similar situation and fortunately our  
community network
achieved AS status. We are a meshed wireless network in Vienna,  
Austria (http://funkfeuer.at). BUT we would not have been able to do  
it without some help / intervention of a friendly ISP. The barriers  
have in practice become to big for community projects to become part  
of the regular internet.

One of the forerunners of the wireless community networks -  
freifunk.net - therefore just took some reserved IP space :  
104.x.x.x . Sad.

In my humble opinion it makes absolutely no sense hoard IPv6 space  
and an AS number. These  young networking fellows are actually  
reinventing the way we think about the subject. It would be much more  
interesting to give some IP space (hey wasn't it all about having  
enough IP space?) to a very interesting experiment. Reality will  
decide anyway if the community wireless net is technically and  
socially feasible or no (so far it is in many different countries :)
And no - it is not competition. Because a client will want to buy  
some kind of SLA - that is something that he/she will not be able to  
buy with wireless networks. Especially not in an ISM band.


Please keep in mind what Van Jacobson et al recently said:

    So if we want to think about where networking might be in 10 or
    15 years, it behooves us to look at (r)evolution at the edge. [1]


Christopher: Just make realities! They will like it anyway, once they  
understood it.


best regards,
Aaron Kaplan.
http://funkfeuer.at - mobile meshnetworking in Vienna


PS: yes i know, it was about IPv6 space in the first place, but it is  
the same thing. Established organizations don't want young  
experimenters/i.e. they make things prohibitively expensive. And yes,  
Christopher, IMHO it probably makes sense to first get v4 working  
anyway, because every windows comp errr sorry every windows user only  
knows v4. And you need users in the beginning so that the mesh  
becomes dense.

---
[1]
"Making the World (of Communications) a Different Place",

David D. Clark, Craig Partridge, Robert T. Braden, Bruce Davie, Sally  
Floyd,
Van Jacobson, Dina Katabi, Greg Minshall, K.K. Ramakrishnan, Timothy  
Roscoe,
Ion Stoica, John Wroclawski and Lixia Zhang

On Jan 30, 2006, at 1:47 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> See below, in-line.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>> De: Christopher Martin <[email protected]>
>> Responder a: <[email protected]>
>> Fecha: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:22:34 +1100
>> Para: <[email protected]>
>> CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> Asunto: RE: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen-LqLoW1FB7k/[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Monday, 30 January 2006 10:56 PM
>>> To: Christopher Martin
>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
>>>
>>> The certainly do have options for IPv6 only. See:
>>> http://www.apnic.net/docs/corpdocs/member-fee-schedule.html
>>> Which means small: $2500 US which translates to $3750 AU.
>>
>> Those membership levels assume much larger allocations than we  
>> require. It
>> would be remiss of us to use our limited resources to acquire  
>> assets which
>> we could only hope to use a tiny portion of. We need a modest,  
>> portable
>> range.
>
> Remember that the minimum prefix for IPv6 is /32.
>
>>
>>> What would be unfair is if a "non-profit" organization could get a
>>> 'cheaper' prefix than a commercial organization. Especially  
>>> because you
>>> are in direct competition with them. That your business model  
>>> doesn't
>>> give you enough funding doesn't mean that would become an option.
>>> Then again politics on this planet seem to like those kind of  
>>> constructs.
>>
>> Actually, there is no case of direct competition as the network:
>>
>> * Won't provide any IPv4 access to the internet
>
> I'm not sure to understand then how your users will use email and  
> other
> services, which aren't yet available with IPv6 worldwide. Same for  
> lots of
> web sites, which are only available with IPv4. Unless you have  
> plans for
> doing some proxying ?
>
>> * Won't provide any 6-to-4 translation/bridging to the internet
>
> 6to4 is not a translation, is an automatic tunneling mechanism.
>
>> * Won't offer any guaranteed quality of service
>>
>> For those who can afford a form of broadband it will be a  
>> supplemental
>> service, while those who can't can still act as a peer on at least  
>> some form
>> of network.
>>
>> As a side note, the ISP industry worldwide is marching all over  
>> the original
>> model of the internet, that being a peer-to-peer network, by  
>> forcing DHCP
>> addressing on permanent services like cable and ADSL.
>
> Not all, some realized already that this is not longer good even  
> for them
> ...
>
>>
>>> "Pricing" is globally mostly the same btw.
>>>
>>>> Is there address space made available for research purposes, or  
>>>> is there
>>>> space set aside for not-for-profit use?
>>>
>>> Your best bet is to contact AARNet (http://www.aarnet.edu.au),  
>>> they are
>>> in Australia for research and education and already provide IPv6
>>> connectivity. They might be able to help you out.
>>
>> We have approached AARNet, however they require a peering  
>> agreement to be in
>> place, but the requirements are a very steep hill to climb, needing
>> multi-megabit links in each state, which presupposes the existence  
>> of a
>> network.
>>
>>> There is also at least one project which has received their own IPv6
>>> allocation and  is also non-profit. Maybe OCCAID (http:// 
>>> www.occaid.org)
>>> can help you out.
>>
>> Thanks, I will approach them.
>
> Not sure if this is case for OCCAID, as the idea here is not to  
> provide
> addressing space, but transit for those that can't get good quality  
> transit
> from your own upstreams, which seems not to be your case ?
>
>>
>>> Thirdly there is an "Experimental IPv6 Allocation" policy:
>>> See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html
>>
>> Again, thanks for the info.
>
> This is oriented to experiments, not really services. If it is a trial
> service, may work.
>
>>
>>> BTW: 6bone is dead per 6/6/6.
>>
>> We are aware, and the ISPs in question are looking at connecting  
>> to Telstra,
>> Optus and NTT's v6 trial networks.
>
> They should be no longer trials !
>
>>
>> Thanks for you replies.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>
> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
> Slides available at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be  
> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for  
> the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the  
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,  
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, including  
> attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6