[184345] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Fri Oct 2 09:48:07 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:45:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <B89076A4-E303-4929-A1E1-F709E38EEFC1@beckman.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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" <mel@beckman.org>
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org>
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 < nanog@ics-il.net > 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" < tagno25@gmail.com >
To: "Rob McEwen" < rob@invaluement.com >
Cc: "nanog group" < nanog@nanog.org >
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 < rob@invaluement.com > 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>
