Re: renumbering IPv6
The 8xx system is the one which maps to domain names, not the standard land-line system. In the United States, due to number portability regulations, the standard land-line phone numbers also map to domain names because they are no longer used for routing calls. In the UK, mobile phone numbers also map to domain names because of regulations that allow you to switch mobile network operators and maintain your phone number. Perhaps a customer who wanted to make IP addresses portable would pay a fee to the ISP whose addresses they are, and maintain redirection equipment to the real IPs... And perhaps the price of doing so would actually be higher than just keeping a T1 to that first provider... There are people who are proposing a mechanism like that in order to do a new type of multihoming in IPv6. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.html --Michael Dillon
Re: renumbering IPv6
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, kloch wrote: http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/v6-end-user.txt An org that already has IPv4 space from ARIN will find it trivial to complete. I wonder how well this would apply to orgs with pre-ARIN allocations, particularly smaller blocks. ...david --- david raistrickhttp://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Re: renumbering IPv6
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, david raistrick wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, kloch wrote: http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/v6-end-user.txt An org that already has IPv4 space from ARIN will find it trivial to complete. I wonder how well this would apply to orgs with pre-ARIN allocations, particularly smaller blocks. If you qualify for IPv4 micro-allocation under current ARIN policies (i.e. including for smaller /22 block) which is true about many legacy smaller blocks, then there is a new policy (active and available for use as of 15 days ago) that allows you to get IPv6 Micro-Allocation: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html That is BTW what Bill Manning was referring to when he said ARIN is making disruptive changes in general RIR policies... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
renumbering IPv6
--- David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been told on numerous occasions that one of the reasons IPv6 has not seen significant deployment is because enterprises do not want to obtain their address space from their service provider due to (among other reasons) the cost of renumbering. The reasons I have been told by enterprises regarding lack of IPv6 deployment boil down to 1) lack of business driver (i.e. does it make money?) and 2) many/most medium-large enterprises neither qualify for PI addressing nor would be able to multihome using PA addressing. Issue #2 is being worked on now, but until a policy is securely in place, an enterprise adopting IPv6 is giving up capabilities they have today with IPv4. Are you indicating you believe that renumbering is not an issue? Renumbering is not THE issue. Renumbering sucks. However, there are policies in place to make it so that renumbering doesn't have to happen too much. Also, once renumbering is at the really unpleasant point, that's when an organization generally qualifies for PI space. Renumbering IP space is no different than renumbering postal addresses - the time spent to do so varies directly with the size of the organization, but it doesn't have to be done often. BTW, the telephone analogy folks have been missing here is that of the 8xx system, where the numbers themselves are leased due to intrinsic value, and then redirected to a different inbound trunk/call center/whatever. The 8xx system is the one which maps to domain names, not the standard land-line system. Note that 8xx numbers are not purchased, they are leased, as they consume resources - if 1-800-FLOWERS didn't pay their bill for a while, their whole business would vanish. Perhaps a customer who wanted to make IP addresses portable would pay a fee to the ISP whose addresses they are, and maintain redirection equipment to the real IPs... And perhaps the price of doing so would actually be higher than just keeping a T1 to that first provider... -David David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: renumbering IPv6
David Barak wrote: 2) many/most medium-large enterprises neither qualify for PI addressing nor would be able to multihome using PA addressing. Issue #2 is being worked on now, but until a policy is securely in place, an enterprise adopting IPv6 is giving up capabilities they have today with IPv4. The ARIN IPv6 PI policy recently adopted is currently in effect and the application template is here: http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/v6-end-user.txt An org that already has IPv4 space from ARIN will find it trivial to complete. - Kevin
Re: renumbering IPv6
On Sep 13, 2006, at 1:27 PM, David Barak wrote: Perhaps a customer who wanted to make IP addresses portable would pay a fee to the ISP whose addresses they are, and maintain redirection equipment to the real IPs... And perhaps the price of doing so would actually be higher than just keeping a T1 to that first provider... from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4192.txt - Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that the concept of network renumbering as a normal or frequent procedure is daft. Their comments, if they result in improved address management practices in networks, may be the best contribution this note has to offer. - Without PI space for customers, both renumbering and traffic engineering/redundancy for the enterprise customer become a) horribly complex and b) subject to the whims of business relationships. Neither of these conditions is tolerable for those customers; turning every host on the network into a router via a Shim-6-like mechanism isn't, either (can you imagine help-desks who can barely cope with basic Windows issues trying to support Shim-6, heh?). Until these issues are resolved, widespread adoption of IPv6 by large enterprise customers for general-purpose networking will be problematic (note that these aren't the only issues, but they are gating issues which render the others moot) at best. Vendors, network operators and those participating in standards bodies must understand the seriousness of these issues for customers and work to address them (pardon the pun, heh). Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth
