Well, outside of RIR speak, I can't justify quadrupling my cost for what the
community considers to be the minimum ISP allocation. Maybe that's a better
phrasing? *shrugs* {insert rent is too damn high meme}?
This 8 bit network division stuff does make it difficult for ARIN to adequately
assess fees, I'm sure. Most anyone could get by with the /32 bucket, which also
happens to be the minimum I should be using.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com>
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>
Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 2:04:48 PM
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force
rapid ipv6 adoption")
Yes… This is a problem the ARIN board needs to fix post haste, but that’s not
justification, that’s cost.
Owen
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 06:45 , Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> 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" <m...@beckman.org>
> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 < na...@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" < tagn...@gmail.com >
> To: "Rob McEwen" < r...@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 < r...@invaluement.com > wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>
> <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>
