Yes we all go to NANOG meetings and talk about these solutions but the change has to come from within. its not just a technical solution. There has to be motivation and incentive for people to make this change. Zaid ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Timmins" <paul@telcodata.us> To: "Zaid Ali" <zaid@zaidali.com> Cc: "Roger Marquis" <marquis@roble.com>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 10:22:16 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Zaid Ali wrote:

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.

Just upgrade your load balancer (or request a feature from your load balancer company) to map an external IPv6 address to a pool of IPv4 servers. Problem solved.

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.

Continue to run IPv4 internally for this application. There's no logical reason that IPv4 can't continue to coexist for decades. Heck, people still run IPX, right? -Paul

Matthew Huff wrote:

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, [..]

Because like, ARIN wasn't the first RIR to provide that possibility. http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/ipv6_assignment.html I assume you will have IPv6 next week now? Greets, Jeroen

DNS is great, but there is plenty of stuff to change that doesn't use DNS (ACLS, etc...). The point is, why should we go through the pain of renumbering, and have to do it everytime our relationship with our ISP changes? We aren't going to go there. It isn't renumbering that's the problem, the problem is that it being tied to an external company. ---- 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: Måns Nilsson [mailto:mansaxel@besserwisser.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:19 PM To: Matthew Huff; 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis' Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

--On tisdag, tisdag 3 feb 2009 13.24.59 -0500 Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:

...

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.

Renumbering will happen. Be prepared or cry louder when it happens. DNS was invented for this, and v4 PA space is functionally equivalent to v6 here.

Getting PI space only pushes the inevitable a bit, while lessening the incentives to DTRT wrt IP address mobility.

-- Måns Nilsson M A C H I N A

YOW!!! I am having fun!!!

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. 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. 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. 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*. ...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

Skeeve Stevens wrote: [please fix your line length, my screen is still not a 100"]

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.

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.

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.

Documentation is exactly that: Documentation. Do not EVER use that in a real box. If you need 'RFC1918 alike' space then go for ULA (RFC4193). Also see http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ for a semi-registered version of that. If you want "guaranteed unique" then go to a RIR.

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*.

Google goes straight through that suit, I suggest you use it and read up on IPv6. Even the Wikipedia entry contains this information. google(rfc1918 ipv6) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network Greets, Jeroen

On 4/02/2009, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

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.

ULA is useful for organisations that cannot get an RIR allocation/ assignment, so are likely to need to re-number. If they number on ULA *in addition to* whatever space their ISP gives them, they do not need to alter any internal DNS, ACLs, etc. etc. if/ when they re-number. An easy example of a good use for ULA might be the internal recursive DNS server addresses that the DHCPv6 server hands out. If they are so inclined, they might even re-number dynamically if they get their prefix using PD. -- Nathan Ward

Exactly..... So.. do I have to be in the US to get ARIN space? Technically space you get is announceable anywhere in the world... Can I just have a /32 from ARIN please and not pay the ton of money that APNIC ask for? I can setup a POBOX in New York if that will help? ;-) Actually, that is an interesting question... If I have a network I am building in the US/other locale, but I am based here, can I become an ARIN/RIPE/etc member and get a range out of them? ...Skeeve -----Original Message----- From: Peter J. Cherny [mailto:peterc@luddite.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 11:06 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong wrote:

... I don't know what the APNIC fees and membership requirements are.

A succinct summary, see below !

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?

APNIC fees are an order of magnitude (or more) higher ! http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html#non_mem_fee ftp://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/non-member-fees-2008 (APNIC-118) I quote from APNIC-118 : A host address in IPv4 is defined as a /32 and a site address in IPv6 is defined a /48. The initial fee for an assignment or allocation of IP addresses is AU$1.27 per host or site address, with a minimum fee of AU$10,384. After the first year of the initial assignment or allocation, there is an annual registration fee is AU$0.127 per host or site address, with a minimum fee of AU$1,038.40.

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.

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.

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.

FD00::/8 ula-l rfc 4139

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*.

And for those kinds of applications, yell at your vendors to come up with a solution. They say that there is about 2 years of ipv4 left. Then we’re screwed. If people sit with their thumbs up their asses now, and are not out planning budgets and migration strategies, they will be caught when they want to do network expansions. Note… the running out of IPv4 will NOT effect your current operations in any way. Your providers transit will (or already has) become dual stack, and you will continue to be able to talk to the internet as a whole unless native v6 only content starts to appear, which it will and then problems will appear. This situation will be able to go on for years without your changing anything….. unless you want these applications to keep communicating with the ever growing internet on ipv6… and if you do, plan for it… decide if you’re going to do it now, in a year, or in 10 years and how you want to look to your shareholders or stakeholders… because eventually, they will ask… they may not want to pay for it just now… but there is a lot of things you can do before you have to start paying real money for things. - Getting your assignment/allocation - Developing your documentation/plan of how it will be assigned internally - Start to identify what parts of your infrastructure will not cope (everyone will need to use NAT-PT internally for some 10 years or more) - Start talking to your hardware and software vendors about v6 and understanding their product roadmaps, timelines and so on. With all this, when it becomes inevitable you won’t have to suddenly do a ton of work…. Or you could buy ‘Migrating my corporate network to IPv6 for Dummies’ …Skeeve From: Dave Temkin [mailto:davet1@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 9:06 AM To: skeeve@skeeve.org Cc: 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space The problem with that solution mainly being that the application itself still needs some sort of intelligence as well as the border device potentially doing L7 operations (header insertion/etc.) - unless you're OK with generally losing all information about the source of incoming traffic at the backend (except for looking at NAT tables...) -Dave Skeeve Stevens wrote: With new dual-stack border devices people will be able to move bit by bit, and there is no real reason to have to run around and change everything that you have internally. These will change and update over time. These internal applications aren't running on public IP addresses anyway. ...Skeeve -----Original Message----- From: Zaid Ali [mailto:zaid@zaidali.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:19 AM 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" <mailto:marquis@roble.com> <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 Stephen Sprunk wrote: 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 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