[182289] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nikolay Shopik)
Tue Jul 14 18:10:14 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Nikolay Shopik <shopik@inblock.ru>
In-Reply-To: <589b69a22fdf4eeebafae7ee8d893943@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 01:10:04 +0300
To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Or wait ILNP/ILA https://lwn.net/Articles/647515/
> On 15 =C9=C0=CC=D1 2015 =C7., at 0:09, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
>=20
> Exactly.
>=20
> As a business entity and not a provider, we wouldn't have even contemplate=
d deploying IPv6 without PI addresses. The myth of easy renumbering and/or h=
aving multiple prefixes/address per host for failover still shows up from ti=
me to time, but mostly gets ignored (at least in the corporate world). Remem=
ber SHIM?=20
>=20
> Any reasonable size organization that expects reliable internet connection=
s is going to go BGP/PI.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----
> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577
> OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039
> aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:50 PM
> To: Chuck Church
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
>=20
>> What about dual-homed customers? Or are they all expected to have their o=
wn
>> PI space?
>=20
> This is IPv6. Why shouldn't they have their own PI space?
>=20
> R's,
> John
