Yes… This is a problem the ARIN board needs to fix post haste, but that’s not justification, that’s cost.
Owen > On Oct 2, 2015, at 06:45 , Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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>
