Subject: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing

From: "Christopher Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:03:49 +1100

I am heading up a project to construct a community wireless network covering
all areas of Australia that wish to participate, and we have reached the
conclusion that any effort spent creating a universally routable network
based on IPv4 is a doomed strategy.

The project is being supported by the Australian Wireless Association
(www.australianwireless.org), a not-for-profit member based organisation. At
this stage we have arranged agreements with two Australian ISPs to allow us
to interconnect with their IPv6 networks, one of which is 6bone connected.
We are very happy with this situation, and have secured the access without
any costs. We have also secured hardware to run as a border router to be
co-located in the ISP's facilities.

The next step is for us to acquire address space and an AS number so we can
use the interconnection, however this is where we have hit issues. Our local
IP addressing registrar, APNIC, is a purely commercial organisation and has
no interest in assisting us, refusing to even let us plead our case. Our
membership fees can cover the AU$1000 they charge for an AS number, but the
AU$5000 per year membership fee required to get any sort of addressing is
more than we can afford. The pricing structure of APNIC assumes you want
IPv4 addressing, which we do not, and they have no options for IPv6 only.
Given the vast unplumbed depths of IPv6 available this seems a little
unfair.

Is there address space made available for research purposes, or is there
space set aside for not-for-profit use? Is there a registrar set up for
research networks? We feel that we have something to offer the IPv6
community, by both providing users a broadband path directly to 6bone,
rather than through long distance tunnels, and as we plan to implement many
links as purely IPv6 it provides a potential demonstration of the next
generation of networks. It also will reveal any issues with IPv6 over
wireless.

The network will provide a fixed cost connectivity option for people who may
not be able to afford the costs of regular broadband internet access. It
also has a strong following amongst the enthusiast community, and provides a
genuine opportunity to test IPv6 in the wild in a large network with
potentially thousands of users. It will be a best effort system; with
efforts made to build a meshed structure to provide redundancy as we expect
the wireless links to fail regularly (wireless is an inherently less stable
technology when compared to traditional wired networks).

I hope someone in the IPv6 community has a suggestion or can help us.

Chris Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:56:18 +0100

Hi Chris,

I understand your perception, but honestly speaking, I think is wrong (and
just in case, I'm not employed or anything similar by APNIC or any other
RIR).

The first point is that you should not use anymore 6Bone. It is being pashed
out, and some carriers are already filtering this prefix.

There is not any entity which can provide ASNs and IP (v4/v6) addresses
beside the RIRs, and I don't feel they are "commercial" entities.

The RIRs just execute the community policy and decisions, and that means
that they can't decide to donate an ASN or IP prefix, unless the community
agree on that. I'm sure they will be happy to tell you how to submit a
request for a policy for those cases or something similar, but you should
convince the community, which I'm not so sure will be so easy for your case.

I'm also sure that there is a way to get IPv6 space even if you don't want
IPv4 one, but my advise is to run dual stack in the LANs and your
"interface" with your upstream providers, if you want to ensure that older
apps which aren't ported still work (typically behind a NAT).

It will be much easier to calculate the cost of the IPv6 prefix and ASN and
make it part of your fixed/recurrent costs which you should get back with
the fixed cost that you are going to charge to the network users, as I guess
you will do with any other infrastructure costs or recurrent fees.

An alternative may be to convince you upstream provider to get the ASN and
prefix for you, with the issue that if you have more than one, you will not
have a provider independent space.

Besides those considerations, I will be very happy to support your
initiative if any technical skills are needed.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Christopher Martin <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:03:49 +1100
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
> 

**********************************************
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.

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:55:57 +0100

[Reply-To set to [email-masked]
 IETF == protocols, RIRs == address space policy]

Christopher Martin wrote:
[..]
> IPv4 addressing, which we do not, and they have no options for IPv6 only.

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.

> Given the vast unplumbed depths of IPv6 available this seems a little

[snipped from below]
> The network will provide a fixed cost connectivity option for people
> who may not be able to afford the costs of regular broadband internet
> access.

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.

"Pricing" is globally mostly the same btw.

> 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.

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.

Thirdly there is an "Experimental IPv6 Allocation" policy:
See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html

> We feel that we have something to offer the IPv6

These tests have already been conducted by many many many many other
folks. Google for the papers on this subject.

BTW: 6bone is dead per 6/6/6.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: "Christopher Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:22:34 +1100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 30 January 2006 10:56 PM
> To: Christopher Martin
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
> 

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.

> 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
* Won't provide any 6-to-4 translation/bridging to the internet
* 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.

> 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.

> allocation and  is also non-profit. Maybe OCCAID (http://www.occaid.org)

Thanks, I will approach them.

> See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html

Again, thanks for the info.

> 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.

Thanks for you replies.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:47:04 +0100

Hi Chris,

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:22:34 +1100
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: RE: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
> 
> 
> 

Remember that the minimum prefix for IPv6 is /32.

> * 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.

> addressing on permanent services like cable and ADSL.

Not all, some realized already that this is not longer good even for them
...

> 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 ?

> Again, thanks for the info.

This is oriented to experiments, not really services. If it is a trial
service, may work.

> Optus and NTT's v6 trial networks.

They should be no longer trials !

---

From: Sparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:57:47 -0800

Hello Christopher,

This effort is a great and very interesting activity not only helping IPv6 testers to identify future issues of the next-gen protocol but to help everyone understand the advantages and disadvantages (if there is any that will exist) of it. In Asia Pacific College, Philippines, IPv6 is one of the promising topic in one of our networking subjects (under-graduate). Since it is new and not yet used ubiquitously unlike IPv4, we do try to get some resources over the web, understand its concepts, its unicast address features, etc. After several discussions the students are encourage to build an IPv6 network, it is still runs with the legacy protocol though. 

In our case, I am not sure if there is any local-ISP that possesses IPv6 address space already. As soon as your research become successful, please let us know so we can also work on it locally. This will not only benefit local ISP's, network engineers/administrators but some students who would like to learn more on IPv6 implementation, the real-world setup. 

Thanks,
-S

> From: [email-masked]
> Sent: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:03:49 +1100
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
>

---

From: "Christopher Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:50:31 +1100

> See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html

This seems to possibly address (excuse the pun) our needs. Are all RIRs
(including APNIC) required to allow for such allocations? Do we have to find
a LIR, or can we just submit a request to APNIC?

Thanks again for your help.

Chris Martin

---

From: "Christopher Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:06:26 +1100

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Christopher Martin
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2006 1:51 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: IPv6 Research/Not-for-profit Addressing
> 
> 

After doing some further research I seem to have answered my own question.

In APNICs case, they ask you to join as an associate member, after which
experimental allocations can be acquired. As that level of membership is
under AU$1000 per year and provides access to AS Numbers this is a very
acceptable solution.

I will propose this as a solution to our steering committee. Thanks for
everyone's help. Wish us luck!

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:31:57 +0100

Hi Chris,

I think this is ok if you intend to run an experiment and after a maximum of
two years report the results to the community.

Not sure if APNIC has an equivalent policy, you should check.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:06:26 +1100
> Para: <[email-masked]>

---

From: "James Jun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:13:22 -0500

Chris,

One thing to consider as others have pointed out is that, RIR fees do not
typically treat non-profits any better than for-profits.  The RIRs
themselves are technically non-profit corporations and they are charging for
management and allocation of address space, not what you do with them.  So
fees would typically apply the same whether you are commercial ISP or not.

One exception however is in ARIN (RIPE may have this also, not sure about
APNIC as I never dealt with them previously) has an experimental allocation
service, which reduces the fees than that of regular allocation.  These
experimental allocations are not designated for research networks to be used
for long term-- b/c if you are given an experimental allocation for reduced
fee, it is only short term lease, and you would need to describe the outcome
and purpose of your research for the duration of that lease.  But if you are
looking to provide long-term services like you are with your project, your
best bet is to take the RIR's cost for regular allocation, then divide it by
the number of members you have and have everyone pay a portion of it to get
it going..

At lease this is how most governmental and private-sector funded research
networks are run.  They charge membership fee, and use that to pay costs
like this; if there is no membership fee, and then have everyone bear the
cost of RIR fees.  Besides, if you don't have enough members on your network
that cost-sharing model doesn't work out, then you probably won't be able to
meet RIR's policies for getting a /32 space either if you have that little
users.

Hope this helps..

Regards,

James Jun
IP Infrastructure & Technology Services
TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
WWW: http://www.towardex.com
Email: [email-masked]
Office: +1 (617) 459-4051 Ext. 179
Mobile: +1 (978) 394-2867

> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:23 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Christopher Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:36:06 +1100

Answers inline again.

> From: James Jun [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2006 5:13 AM
> To: 'Christopher Martin'; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]

The problem is the chicken and the egg. For the network to be successful
where it can grow to the point where it can pay for addressing out of the
membership fees it needs to be feature complete, and the system relies on
IPv6 addressing. Now, if we were to get a small allocation from a tunnel
broker or some upstream ISP, there would inevitably come a point where we
had to renumber, once we could afford our own space. An ISP just accepts the
cost of the labour of such works, but we rely on donated time, and again it
would be a waste of this very limited resource to re-engineer a network when
we knew perfectly well what was required to prevent it.

We are not like a start-up company. We have no seed funding, we have no
investors. Now, if a generous benefactor offered us enough funding to get
two years APNIC membership then we could get the addresses, build the
network and grow the membership base, but this has not happened as yet.

> meet RIR's policies for getting a /32 space either if you have that little

Unfortunately our government is like most: run by stupid old men, and it is
more and more like the US every year: stupid old men in the pocket of big
business. Not that I'm suggesting our honourable female politicians are
bribe free, more a statement that there is still such a massive imbalance
between the gender's representation. Moving on...

People believe that self regulation industry works, and unfortunately the
truth is that it doesn't. This is what has driven the creation of community
networks: there is a need for networks where people can:

* be an equal with any other, whether they can afford membership of an RIR
or not
* be independent of a service provider so that you can move if they make
your position untenable
* share whatever services they want, how they want
* have access to new technologies as they are developed, not whenever the
ISPs deign to give them to us.

People would not even bother with community networks if there wasn't a clear
and obvious need for them.

The simple reality is that currently the features most likely to be
developed are those a company funds, and decisions are most likely to favour
the company who spends the most campaigning. To say that commercial
interests don't have a disproportionate opportunity to skew the industry is
to be incredibly naive.

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:58:25 +0100

[Reply-To: set to [email-masked] where this belongs]
[replies to Sparc, Aaron Kaplan & C. Martin]

Sparc wrote:
[..]
> In our case, I am not sure if there is any local-ISP that possesses
> IPv6 address space already.

You said Philipines, thus check here:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=ph
Other countries are also there of course.

Aaron Kaplan wrote:
> 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.

The trick here is that you need address space. Address space is
something you can get from LIR's and RIR's, depending on the amount
and for what reason you want to get it. Most likely for a community
network you already will be happy enough with a /48, thus go to your
friendly LIR and get that /48. Done Presto.

Otherwise, make a solid case for 200 customers, become LIR, pay the
bills and get that prefix. (~2000 EUR / 200 cust = 10 EUR/cust/year)
That ain't that pricy to my eyes.

I am also aware of a couple of wireless networks and other experimental
networks using a SixXS tunnel and subnet. All that address space is also
free to get. The only thing is that you don't have "Routing
Independence" and the thing that many want: "Provider Independence"...

> We are not like a start-up company. We have no seed funding, we have
> no investors. Now, if a generous benefactor offered us enough funding
> to get two years APNIC membership then we could get the addresses,
> build the network and grow the membership base, but this has not
> happened as yet.

RIR's are not there to help you start your organization/company/etc.
That is business 101, which is done somewhere else.

IMHO 'experimental' allocations should also not be used for those
setups. But there are then I guess little to no cases left where those
prefix really can be used.

[..]
> * be an equal with any other, whether they can afford membership
>   of an RIR or not
> * be independent of a service provider so that you can move if
>   they make your position untenable
> * have access to new technologies as they are developed, not
>   whenever the ISPs deign to give them to us.

In other words "a company which does what ISP's do but for free" and
without the SLA's. That is thus direct competition to them.

> People would not even bother with community networks if there wasn't
> a clear and obvious need for them.

The need is that people don't want to pay. Your job to do: start a cheap
ISP that works correctly and gives that feature set. You have set it
already yourself "people need these things" (listed above), well found
your ISP around it and get those people in your group. But then your
group doesn't have time to do a new technology, as they have a business
to run and suddenly you are just exactly the same as every other
company, though you had the intention at one point.

Not cracking you down, but that is unfortunately the way it is.

Greets,
 Jeroen