[111309] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Skeeve Stevens)
Tue Feb 3 17:16:49 2009
From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve@skeeve.org>
To: "'Matthew Huff'" <mhuff@ox.com>
In-Reply-To: <483E6B0272B0284BA86D7596C40D29F984E82B67C3@PUR-EXCH07.ox.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:18:40 +1100
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: skeeve@skeeve.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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.
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.
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.
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*.
...Skeeve
* never say never!
# http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mhuff@ox.com]=20
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=20
owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it is easy =
for us=20
to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, we will look at =
deploying=20
ipv6, but not until then. That's not a technical issue, but rather a =
business=20
decision, and it's not going to change. We aren't depending our network=20
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:zaid@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" <marquis@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
>
