Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

Quick FYI - ARIN has a documented appeals process that an organization can use if they believe that ARIN staff did not follow community-established policies in the review of their resource request. Here is the link: https://www.arin.net/resources/resource_requests/appeal_process.html Regards, Le

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/19/2010 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: When did you ask? If it was more than 6 months ago, then, I would suggest asking again. If it was less than 6 months ago, can you send me any or all of the correspondence so I can address it with Leslie and try and get whatever training issues remain re

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 10/19/2010 4:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >> No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking for >> larger. >> > > ME: I really need larger space > ARIN: We don't see how you can justify it, and we hardly ever give l

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/19/2010 11:53 AM, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote: HS: Where customers = spammers? The only folks I have seen ask to do 'address rotation' have either been spammers or copyright monitoring services. I have never seen a request for 'address rotation' to protect a customer

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 19, 2010, at 5:21 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> There are advantages to being able to use 16 bits to build various forms >> of hierarchical topology on a dynamic basis within a SOHO environment. >> If we reduce that to 8 bits, we will block innovati

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

Owen > Ben > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:r...@seastrom.com] > Sent: 19 October 2010 11:53 > To: George Bonser > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption > > > "George Bonser"

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

-Original Message- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:12 PM To: Franck Martin Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption On 10/18/2010 3:51 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > So they can't run their own services from

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/19/2010 6:24 AM, Dan White wrote: But I still feel strongly that a /48 assignment model for residential customers is right for our environment. Perfectly reasonable. If you've analyzed your situation and come to that conclusion who am I to argue? Please note, I'm NOT saying, "You must us

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/19/2010 4:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking for larger. ME: I really need larger space ARIN: We don't see how you can justify it, and we hardly ever give larger than /32 THE END or, if you have larger POPs, start wit

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 18/10/10 19:24 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: sth...@nethelp.no writes: I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the same size" is a particularly relevan

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > > There are advantages to being able to use 16 bits to build various forms > of hierarchical topology on a dynamic basis within a SOHO environment. > If we reduce that to 8 bits, we will block innovations that are > currently underway in this space. Can yo

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

best practices. Ben -Original Message- From: Ben Butler [mailto:ben.but...@c2internet.net] Sent: 19 October 2010 12:26 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Hi, Another way of looking at it would be what would the world population need to be in order to exhaust all of t

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/19/10, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > >> On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >>> >>> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need >>> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the >>> same siz

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

proves the fallacy of needing to conserve IPv6 address space Ben -Original Message- From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:r...@seastrom.com] Sent: 19 October 2010 11:53 To: George Bonser Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption "George Bonser&quo

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

"George Bonser" writes: >> You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our >> children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have >> 99.9% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry >> 99.9975% that might have been their inheritance were i

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 10/18/2010 7:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our >> children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have >> 99.9% of IPv6 space left to work with rather

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad wrote: > RS, > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we >> would use about .25 of the total available IPv6 address space. > > Sure. I once did the math that su

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> >> sth...@nethelp.no writes: >> >>> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need >>> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the >>> same size"

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > >> >> sth...@nethelp.no writes: >> >>> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need >>> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments th

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for IPv6. >> It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we haven't >> accounted for in some of our current thinking.

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >> >> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need >> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the >> same size" is a particularly relevant or convinci

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

> -Original Message- > From: Eugen Leitl > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:18 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:27:21PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: > > > I have a feeling that IP

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:27:21PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: > I have a feeling that IP addresses will now be used in ways that people > have not envisioned them being used before. Given a surplus of any > resource, people find creative ways of using it. Encoding high-resolution geographic co

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/18/2010 7:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have 99.9% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry 99.9975% that might have been their inher

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

> -Original Message- > From: Robert E. Seastrom > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:17 PM > To: sth...@nethelp.no > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption > You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our >

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: sth...@nethelp.no writes: I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument. We're doing /56 fo

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

In message <35804bc3-9efe-4ce4-b13a-f2e15c420...@americafree.tv>, Marshall Euba nks writes: > It makes a bigger difference if everyone starts using 6RD - to give out = > a /48 effectively=20 > requires a /16, and the number of /16s is by no means approximately = > infinite.=20 > > Regards > Mars

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

RS, On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we > would use about .25 of the total available IPv6 address space. Sure. I once did the math that suggested that even if you multiplied the current IPv4 consumpti

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

Marshall Eubanks writes: > It makes a bigger difference if everyone starts using 6RD - to give > out a /48 effectively requires a /16, and the number of /16s is by > no means approximately infinite. Don't I know it! Poorly designed protocol, but what're we gonna do? I was of the "a /56 was bad

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > sth...@nethelp.no writes: > >> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need >> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the >> same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

John, Thank you very much. That clarification helps out quite a bit. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President, IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (419)739-9240, x1 - Original Message - > On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: >

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

sth...@nethelp.no writes: > I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need > /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the > same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument. > > We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to c

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their nearest > neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close considering there is a > lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and there doesn't seem to be > consensus yet

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Doug Barton wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for > > IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we > > haven't accounted for in some of our cu

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/18/2010 14:39, Doug Barton wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for >> IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we >> haven't accounted for in some of our current thinking. > > Q:

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we haven't accounted for in some of our current thinking. Q: Why are /48s everywhere a good idea? A: Becaus

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/18/2010 3:51 PM, Franck Martin wrote: So they can't run their own services from home and have to request premium connectivity from you? Beside the IPv4 scarcity mentality we have the Telco mentality to fight... Happy days still ahead... Of course they can run their own services at hom

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

Generally the older allocations would be left in place until deprecated by attrition. At least that's what I plan to advocate in my policy proposal. Owen Sent from my iPad On Oct 18, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from th

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:10:35 AM Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need > /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the ad

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

On 10/18/10 12:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their > nearest neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close > considering there is a lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and > there doesn't seem to be consensus yet. > > For

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument. We're doing /56 for residential users, and have

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their nearest neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close considering there is a lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and there doesn't seem to be consensus yet. For these customers, I don't think they will need more than

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

Randy - We'll likely put that out to the ARIN community for consultation at the point in time when becomes a potential issue. I expect we will have plenty of time before that needs to be considered at the present rate of allocation. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Oct 18,

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

John, Can you tell us at what degree the bisection stops? i.e. does it keep going until there are no spaces left, or will you leave some space in between each one to leave some room for future needs for orgs that already have allocations? -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President, IT Serv

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> The customers should get /48s. The /56 guideline is merely that and only for >> the smallest of sites. It's also subsequently turned out to be bad advice. > > Can you elaborate on why /56 is "bad advi

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, David Conrad wrote: > On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote: >> ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31). > > Do they still do that? Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications > the RIRs gave for the /12s they receiv

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote: >> ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31). > > Do they still do that? Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications > the RIRs gave for the /12s they received

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

> > don't decide without thinking it through that you're assigning a > > customer a /64 a /60 a /56 or even /48. this should be defensible as > > part of a business plan, otherwise what's the point? > > > A /48 is defensible. It's the architecturally intended end-site configuration, > it is allowe

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: The customers should get /48s. The /56 guideline is merely that and only for the smallest of sites. It's also subsequently turned out to be bad advice. Can you elaborate on why /56 is "bad advice" and if you're saying it only for this case or if you're

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31). Do they still do that? Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications the RIRs gave for the /12s they received was that they were going to be using the 'bisection' meth

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 10/18/2010 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> More accurately... A /48 per customer end-site... >> > > Define end0-site. Residential customers, for example, don't need more than a > /56. More would just be obscene. Most small businesses don

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

r trade it in or put it in a lab and get a REAL block. >> >> Tony >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM >>> To: nanog@nanog.org >>> Subj

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > > > On 10/18/2010 11:47 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that in practice. >> >> I recently worked with a customer that has ~60,000 customers >> currently. We tried to get a larger block, but were denied. ARI

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

AL >> block. >> >> Tony >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM >>> To: nanog@nanog.org >>> Subject: RE: Definitive Guide t

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/18/10 10:10 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 10/18/2010 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> More accurately... A /48 per customer end-site... >> > > Define end0-site. Residential customers, for example, don't need more > than a /56. This is a matter of opinion not gospel. larger, this size, or sma

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/18/2010 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: More accurately... A /48 per customer end-site... Define end0-site. Residential customers, for example, don't need more than a /56. More would just be obscene. Most small businesses don't need more than a /56 either, especially if you are breaking

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On 10/18/2010 11:47 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that in practice. I recently worked with a customer that has ~60,000 customers currently. We tried to get a larger block, but were denied. ARIN said they would only issue a /32, unless immediate usage could be

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com] >> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption >> >> >> Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of >> informa

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 18, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > This 'get a /32' BAD ADVICE has got to stop. There are way too many people > trying to force fit their customers into a block that is intended for a > start-up with ZERO customers. > +1 > Develop a plan for /48 per customer, then go to ARIN and ge

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

ntly I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks > > for that correction > > > > Thanks again especially on a Saturday weekend! > > > > > > > > > From: rdobb...@arbor.net > > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > > Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

essage- > From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption > > > Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of > information. > &

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

"Dobbins, Roland" writes: > Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile, > > A good companion to Eric's book is Deploying IPv6 Networks Jens -- -

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

approach. Others have different opinions. Owen > - Original Message - > From: "Brandon Kim" > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Sunday, 17 October, 2010 8:58:57 AM > Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption > > > Thanks everyone who respond

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, 17 October, 2010 8:58:57 AM Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of information. Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks for that correction Thanks again

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:09:43 + > Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption > > > On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > > Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most > > cuurent if not helpful information resides. >

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most > cuurent if not helpful information resides. Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile, as well, in combination with Schudel & Smith's infrastructure s

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

Joel's widget number 2 On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:36, Brandon Kim wrote: > > Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has > books/articles they recommend on fully > understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN > shortly to request a v6 block. >

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Brandon Kim wrote: > > Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has > books/articles they recommend on fully > understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN > shortly to request a v6 block. > > I'm assuming I would