On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now.
As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48), APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this.
To clarify, you can get whatever size assignment you need, but, the default unless you request larger and can justify it is a /48. To put this in perspective, a /48 is 65536*4billion*the total IPv4 address space. Further, it's enough space for 65,536 subnets with 64 bit host addresses. Likely, this is enough for most end-user organizations, but, if you are part of an organization that needs more, you can get it simply by justifying your additional needs.
Yes, you have to pay for it, but the addresses will be yours, unlike the RFC1918 ranges which is akin to 2.4Ghz wireless.. lets just share and hope we never interconnect/overlap.
In the ARIN region, the end-user annual fees are quite low. I don't see this as a significant barrier to entry to most end-user organizations.
I can't find a RFC1918 equivalent for v6 with the exception of 2001:0DB8::/32# which is the ranges that has been assigned for documentation use and is considered to NEVER be routable. In that / 32 are 65536 /48's... way more than the RFC1918 we have now.
There is the ULA-Random space, but, I'm not sure if that got ratified or was rescinded. I really don't see a need for RFC-1918 in the IPv6 world. RFC-1918 was intended to solve a problem with a shortage of address space by allowing disparate private networks to recycle the same numbers behind NAT or for use on non-connected networks. There is no such shortage in IPv6. I think it is wiser to number non-connected IPv6 networks from valid unique addresses since there is no shortage.
If I was going to build a v6 network right now, that was purely private and never* going to hit the internet, and I could not afford to be a NIC member or pay the fees... then I would be using the ranges above.... I wonder if that will start a flame war *puts on fire suit*.
I don't know what the APNIC fees and membership requirements are. However, in the ARIN region, you do not need to be a member to get address space. The renewal fee for end-user space is $100/year. If you can't afford $100/year, how are you staying connected to the network or paying to power your equipment? Owen
...Skeeve
* never say never! # http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mhuff@ox.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:25 AM To: 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis' Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP address owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it is easy for us to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, we will look at deploying ipv6, but not until then. That's not a technical issue, but rather a business decision, and it's not going to change. We aren't depending our network resources on an external third-party, especially given their track record.
---- Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139
-----Original Message----- From: Zaid Ali [mailto:zaid@zaidali.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:19 PM To: Roger Marquis Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the willingness to. Technical issues can be resolved if you and people around you are motivated to do so. I think there are some hard facts that need to be addressed when it comes to IPv6. Facts like
1. How do we migrate to a IPv6 stack on all servers and I am talking about the thousands of servers that exist on peoples network that run SaaS, Financial/Banking systems.
2. How do we make old applications speak IPv6? There are some old back- end systems that run core functions for many businesses out there that don't really have any upgrade path and I don't think people are thinking about this.
From a network perspective IPv6 adoption is just about doing it and executing with your fellow AS neighbors. The elephant in the room is the applications that ride on your network.
Zaid
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Marquis" <marquis@roble.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 9:39:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses.
Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of
Stephen Sprunk wrote: policy
is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria that would allow them to deny any. So far, nobody's shown interest in plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it...
Catch 22? From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it fully supports NAT.
Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future.
Roger Marquis