On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now.
As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48),
APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this.
To clarify, you can get whatever size assignment you need, but, the
default
unless you request larger and can justify it is a /48. To put this in
perspective,
a /48 is 65536*4billion*the total IPv4 address space. Further, it's
enough space
for 65,536 subnets with 64 bit host addresses. Likely, this is enough
for most
end-user organizations, but, if you are part of an organization that
needs more,
you can get it simply by justifying your additional needs.
Yes, you have to pay for it, but the addresses will be yours, unlike
the RFC1918 ranges which is akin to 2.4Ghz wireless.. lets just
share and hope we never interconnect/overlap.
In the ARIN region, the end-user annual fees are quite low. I don't
see this as
a significant barrier to entry to most end-user organizations.
I can't find a RFC1918 equivalent for v6 with the exception of
2001:0DB8::/32# which is the ranges that has been assigned for
documentation use and is considered to NEVER be routable. In that /
32 are 65536 /48's... way more than the RFC1918 we have now.
There is the ULA-Random space, but, I'm not sure if that got ratified
or was
rescinded. I really don't see a need for RFC-1918 in
the IPv6 world. RFC-1918 was intended to solve a problem with a
shortage
of address space by allowing disparate private networks to recycle the
same
numbers behind NAT or for use on non-connected networks. There is no
such shortage in IPv6. I think it is wiser to number non-connected
IPv6 networks
from valid unique addresses since there is no shortage.
If I was going to build a v6 network right now, that was purely
private and never* going to hit the internet, and I could not afford
to be a NIC member or pay the fees... then I would be using the
ranges above.... I wonder if that will start a flame war *puts on
fire suit*.
I don't know what the APNIC fees and membership requirements are.
However, in the ARIN region, you do not need to be a member to get
address space. The renewal fee for end-user space is $100/year.
If you can't afford $100/year, how are you staying connected to the
network or paying to power your equipment?
Owen
...Skeeve
* never say never!
# http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mh...@ox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:25 AM
To: 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis'
Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP
address
owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it is
easy for us
to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, we will look at
deploying
ipv6, but not until then. That's not a technical issue, but rather a
business
decision, and it's not going to change. We aren't depending our
network
resources on an external third-party, especially given their track
record.
----
Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd
OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139
-----Original Message-----
From: Zaid Ali [mailto:z...@zaidali.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:19 PM
To: Roger Marquis
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation
and the willingness to. Technical issues can be resolved if you and
people around you are motivated to do so. I think there are some hard
facts that need to be addressed when it comes to IPv6. Facts like
1. How do we migrate to a IPv6 stack on all servers and I am talking
about the
thousands of servers that exist on peoples network that run SaaS,
Financial/Banking systems.
2. How do we make old applications speak IPv6? There are some old
back-
end systems
that run core functions for many businesses out there that don't
really have any
upgrade path and I don't think people are thinking about this.
From a network perspective IPv6 adoption is just about doing it and
executing with your fellow AS neighbors. The elephant in the room is
the applications that ride on your network.
Zaid
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Marquis" <marq...@roble.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 9:39:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada
Pacific
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used
one
trillion IP addresses.
Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of
policy
is that all requests are approved since there are no defined
criteria
that would allow them to deny any. So far, nobody's shown interest
in
plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step
forward
if
IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it...
Catch 22? From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular
until
it
fully supports NAT.
Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your
address
space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing
rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of
NAT
only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future.
Roger Marquis