[184457] 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)
Sat Oct 3 15:15:05 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:08:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <01CDE19D-EF61-42EC-9A00-2CCFDB30887E@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Well, outside of RIR speak, I can't justify quadrupling my cost for what th=
e community considers to be the minimum ISP allocation. Maybe that's a bett=
er phrasing? *shrugs* {insert rent is too damn high meme}?=20
This 8 bit network division stuff does make it difficult for ARIN to adequa=
tely assess fees, I'm sure. Most anyone could get by with the /32 bucket, w=
hich also happens to be the minimum I should be using.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>=20
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 2:04:48 PM=20
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force=
rapid ipv6 adoption")=20
Yes=E2=80=A6 This is a problem the ARIN board needs to fix post haste, but =
that=E2=80=99s not justification, that=E2=80=99s cost.=20
Owen=20
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 06:45 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=20
>=20
> I may be able to justify it to ARIN, but I can't make a quadrupling of AR=
IN's fees justifiable to me.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Midwest Internet Exchange=20
> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
>=20
> From: "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org>=20
> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
> Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 8:35:41 AM=20
> Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to for=
ce rapid ipv6 adoption")=20
>=20
>=20
> Every provider gets a /32, according to ARIN.=20
>=20
>=20
> IPv6 - INITIAL ALLOCATIONS=20
> Type of Resource Request Criteria to Receive Resource=20
> ISP Initial Allocation=20
> /32 minimum allocation=20
> (/36 upon request)=20
> NRPM 6.5.1=20
>=20
> * Have a previously justified IPv4 ISP allocation from ARIN or one of its=
predecessor registries, or=20
> * Qualify for an IPv4 ISP allocation under current policy, or=20
> * Intend to immediately multi-home, or=20
> * Provide a reasonable technical justification, including a plan showing =
projected assignments for one, two, and five year periods, with a minimum o=
f 50 assignments within five years=20
>=20
>=20
> IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks=20
> /32 minimum allocation=20
> (/36 upon request)=20
> NRPM 6.11=20
>=20
> * be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities=
=20
>=20
> -mel via cell=20
>=20
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote:=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Not all providers are large enough to justify a /32.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Midwest Internet Exchange=20
> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
>=20
> From: "Philip Dorr" < tagno25@gmail.com >=20
> To: "Rob McEwen" < rob@invaluement.com >=20
> Cc: "nanog group" < nanog@nanog.org >=20
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM=20
> Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to for=
ce rapid ipv6 adoption")=20
>=20
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen < rob@invaluement.com > wrote=
:=20
>=20
> =20
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
>=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's so=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> their isn't infinite numbers of sites that a spammer can get.=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
>=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
>=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> A /48 can be subdivided into 65K subnets. That is 65 *THOUSAND*... not th=
e=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> 256 IPs that one gets with an IPv4 /24 block. So if a somewhat legit host=
er=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> assigns various /64s to DIFFERENT customers of theirs... that is a lot of=
=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> collateral damage that would be caused by listing at the /48 level, shoul=
d=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> just one customer be a bad-apple spammer, or just one legit customer have=
a=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> <blockquote>=20
> compromised system one day.=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
>=20
> As a provider (ISP or Hosting), you should hand the customers at a=20
> minimum a /56, if not a /48. The provider should have at a minimum a=20
> /32. If the provider is only giving their customers a /64, then they=20
> deserve all the pain they receive.=20
>=20
>=20
> </blockquote>=20
