[ppml] Definition of an (IPv6) End Site

Thu Apr 6 11:00:17 EDT 2006

As I said earlier....

My definition would be.....

I would suggest that it implies that the organization's network is not used
to provide for-fee transit to other networks not under their own management.
In addition, depending upon architecture and communication strategy, an
organization might choose to deem a particular element of it's distributed
network a separate end-site, or consider the entire distributed
infrastructure a single end-site.

In such case, the hardware chain and you as an ISP would perhaps jointly
figure out what the best definition is for each independent, or some
aggregate....it's a business and architectural issue.

But, I believe that if each individual HW store is to be deemed and
end-site, then they may be restricted by a policy hurdle to acquire PI
space.

Bill Darte

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net)
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:14 AM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Definition of an (IPv6) End Site
> 
> 
> My confusion rests not on who is an end-site, but how many 
> end-sites that who is.
> 
> Let me give you an example.  Lets say I am and ISP and I have 
> a customer that owns a chain of 100 hardware stores across 
> the US.  Each store is independently operated.  Each store 
> has a separate Internet connection through me.  Each store 
> has a single LAN that is only connected to the Internet.  The 
> stores have no interconnection at all.
> 
> But there is one person at the corporate office that orders 
> all of the T1 installs, and all bills are sent to the 
> corporate office under a single company name.  
> 
> Since there is only one end-user that has a business 
> relationship with me, would this only qualify as a single 
> end-site, and thus all 100 locations should share a single 
> /48?  Or can I consider each separate network ate each 
> separate location an end-site?  In this case I could assign 100 /48s.
> 
> What if the sites are interconnected, in that case should it 
> be one end-site?
> 
> What if the sites are interconnected, but each site has a 
> different contact, but it is all part of the same compnay, in 
> that case should it be one end-site?
> 
> 
> I do understand the other confusion that is going on as well, 
> for example how is the IRS an ISP.  
> 
> What I want to suggest is if you are trying to tighten the 
> language, please also consider the case above .
> 
> ___Jason
> 
> 
> ==============================================================
> ============
> Jason Schiller                                               
> (703)886.6648
> Senior Internet Network Engineer                         
> fax:(703)886.0512
> Public IP Global Network Engineering                       
> schiller at uu.net
> UUNET / Verizon                         
> jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com
> 
> The good news about having an email address that is twice as 
> long is that it increases traffic on the Internet.
> 
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:54:24 -0400
> > From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>
> > To: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> > Subject: [ppml] Definition of an (IPv6) End Site
> > 
> > > We've been 'round and 'round on this before; the 
> definition of "end 
> > > site" is obviously inadequate.
> > 
> > If there is confusion, by definition it's inadequate! :-)
> > 
> > > I'd propose that a single network with private 
> connectivity between 
> > > locations should count as a single "site".  This roughly 
> correlates 
> > > with who qualifies for an ASN.  If the number of 
> locations/subnets 
> > > within that AS justifies it, they would qualify for a 
> larger prefix 
> > > than /48.
> > 
> > I tend to agree. Speaking as a participant in the 
> discussions that led 
> > to the original policy (and the current wording), there was a clear 
> > intention to split the world into two groups:
> > 
> >  - those that provide internet connectivity to customers 
> (i.e., ISPs),
> >    where the customers are not the same organization/company as the
> >    provider, and where there are many _different_ customers, and in
> >    particular not just separate "offices" in a larger businesses.
> > 
> >  - End sites, those that use the internet, get internet service from
> >    ISPs and whose core business is not providing network services to
> >    others.
> > 
> > Obviously, there are boundary cases that are tricky. But 
> the overall 
> > context here was that in order to get good aggregation (and 
> reasonably 
> > bounded routing tables), you wanted ISPs to aggregate addresses for 
> > _many_ end users, i.e., customers. Doing otherwise would 
> run the risk 
> > of (essentially) giving PI space to end users in an unscalable way.
> > 
> > Quoting from the official (current) text:
> > 
> > > 6.2.9. End site
> > >
> > > An end site is defined as an end user (subscriber) who has a 
> > > business relationship with a service provider that involves:
> > >
> > > 1. that service provider assigning address space to the end user
> > >
> > > 2. that service provider providing transit service for 
> the end user 
> > > to other sites
> > >
> > > 3. that service provider carrying the end user's traffic.
> > >
> > > 4. that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix 
> route that 
> > > contains the end user's assignment
> > 
> > In my mind, the above was intended to apply to separate 
> > businesses/organizations, and not large companies that have 
> separate 
> > IT divisions. What we didn't want is to allow end sites to 
> simply set 
> > up shell orgnizations so that they would look like LIRs on paper.
> > 
> > If we really wanted large end sites to get PI space, a 
> separate policy 
> > should be developed (as is being discussed now).
> > 
> > And, one of the other goals above is that all of the 
> customer address 
> > ranges are covered (in the global routing tables) by a single 
> > aggregate prefix.
> > 
> > For many large end sites, this is not what is really 
> desired. I.e., if 
> > someone has large offices in (say) US, Europe and Japan, it 
> may well 
> > be that each of those sites wants to be connected to the 
> Internet via 
> > local ISPs, rather than via (say) the US location (with everything 
> > routed via the US connect point). But if this sort of local 
> > connectivity is desired, having a single aggregate that gets 
> > advertised (by giving the end site a PI assignment) doesn't 
> happen in 
> > practice, raising the question of whether a PI assignment 
> makes sense 
> > in the way people are claiming they are needed.
> > 
> > Thomas
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 