On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:57 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
> What I would need if I were to go with IP6 would be to have a parallel
> address for every one of
> my current addresses. Right now we have 2 - legacy /24's and one legacy /23 -
> thats it.
>
> I'd just need the "equivalent" IP6 space.
> We could just get that from our current provider (Steadfast in this case),
> but it would not
> be portable and with our root servers, (INS - please, not interested in
> discussing the merits of ICANN vs Inclusive Namespace), we would need
> portable IPs that wouldn't change.
>
The problem is that equivalent for IPv6 is not calculated on the host boundary.
N = the number of subnets you have in IPv4.
N * /64 = the bare minimum amount of IPv6 space you need.
If you are an ISP, then, it becomes a bit more complicated.
N = the number of customers you have that have a single subnet
O = the number of customers you have that are SO/HO or small business
and can get by with a /56 and do not request more.
P = the rest of your IP transit customers.
(N+256(O)+65536(P)) * /64 = the bare minimum amount of IPv6 space you need
for customers. You must, then, add a /64 for each of your own
infrastructure
networks as well.
> ARIN does provide microallocations, but ICANN forced them to put "for ICANN
> approved
> root service only" into their policy for microallocations, so that leaves us
> out.
>
ICANN can't force anything into ARIN policy. If you want that wording changed in
ARIN policy, you can submit a policy proposal. If it gains community consensus,
the wording will change and ICANN/IANA will have to live with that.
IANA policies are set through a bottom up process that comes from the RIRs,
not the other way around.
Owen
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com>
> To: "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundem...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>; "Joe Greco" <jgr...@ns.sol.net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: "Running out of IPv6" (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with
> legacyIP4 Space)
>
>
>> On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar <jer...@unfix.org> wrote:
>>>> [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content]
>>>> On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote:
>>>>> Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out
>>>>> of IPv6 quickly.
>>> The bottom line (IMHO) is that IPv6 is NOT infinite and propagating
>>> that myth will lead to waste. That being said, the IPv6 space is MUCH
>>> larger than IPv4. Somewhere between 16 million and 17 billion times
>>> larger based on current standards by my math[1].
>> Agreed
>>>> Ever noticed that fat /13 for a certain military network in the ARIN
>>>> region!?
>>>> At least those /19 are justifyiable under the HD rules (XX million
>>>> customers times a /48 and voila). A /13 though, very hard to justify...
>>> Not every customer needs a /48. In fact most probably don't.
>> Whether they need it or not, it is common allocation/assignment
>> practice. I agree that smaller (SOHO, for example) customers should
>> get a /56 by default and a /48 on request, but, this is by no means
>> a universal truth of current practice.
>> Owen
>>
>
