I may be able to justify it to ARIN, but I can't make a quadrupling of ARIN's fees justifiable to me.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mel Beckman" <[email protected]> To: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> Cc: "nanog group" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 8:35:41 AM Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") Every provider gets a /32, according to ARIN. IPv6 - INITIAL ALLOCATIONS Type of Resource Request Criteria to Receive Resource ISP Initial Allocation /32 minimum allocation (/36 upon request) NRPM 6.5.1 * Have a previously justified IPv4 ISP allocation from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or * Qualify for an IPv4 ISP allocation under current policy, or * Intend to immediately multi-home, or * Provide a reasonable technical justification, including a plan showing projected assignments for one, two, and five year periods, with a minimum of 50 assignments within five years IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks /32 minimum allocation (/36 upon request) NRPM 6.11 * be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities -mel via cell On Oct 2, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Mike Hammett < [email protected] > wrote: Not all providers are large enough to justify a /32. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Dorr" < [email protected] > To: "Rob McEwen" < [email protected] > Cc: "nanog group" < [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: <blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's so </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> their isn't infinite numbers of sites that a spammer can get. </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> A /48 can be subdivided into 65K subnets. That is 65 *THOUSAND*... not the </blockquote> <blockquote> 256 IPs that one gets with an IPv4 /24 block. So if a somewhat legit hoster </blockquote> <blockquote> assigns various /64s to DIFFERENT customers of theirs... that is a lot of </blockquote> <blockquote> collateral damage that would be caused by listing at the /48 level, should </blockquote> <blockquote> just one customer be a bad-apple spammer, or just one legit customer have a </blockquote> <blockquote> compromised system one day. </blockquote> As a provider (ISP or Hosting), you should hand the customers at a minimum a /56, if not a /48. The provider should have at a minimum a /32. If the provider is only giving their customers a /64, then they deserve all the pain they receive. </blockquote>
