RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
From: William Herrin [mailto:bill@herrin.us]
It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past action and it's the decent and charitable thing to do for the folks who created the possibility of the lives we enjoy today.
LOL! I'm sure most legacy orgs are living on a fixed income and just trying to get by; here I was not even feeling sorry for them that they can't have some free IPv6 allocations when they're just trying to survive. ARIN's fees are hardly unreasonable, they need to stop crying and join the rest of us that haven't had to make their businesses work without the luxury of a free handout.
David Hubbard wrote (on Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:07:05AM -0400):
From: William Herrin [mailto:bill@herrin.us]
It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past action and it's the decent and charitable thing to do for the folks who created the possibility of the lives we enjoy today.
LOL! I'm sure most legacy orgs are living on a fixed income and just trying to get by; here I was not even feeling sorry for them that they can't have some free IPv6 allocations when they're just trying to survive.
ARIN's fees are hardly unreasonable, they need to stop crying and join the rest of us that haven't had to make their businesses work without the luxury of a free handout.
Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues ("you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any reason, as we see fit")? -- _________________________________________ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues ("you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any reason, as we see fit")?
I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would be under v6. Even if space were obtained under false pretenses, the cost of reclaiming it (in terms of lawsuits, etc) is essentially being shoveled onto the shoulders of others who have received allocations. It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap.
For "fairly liberally" see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one). In another post you asked essentially "why does ARIN charge so much?" ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6. You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the bums out if you don't like how we do things. We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then we might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be financially solvent through the transition. Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and worth it. Lee
Hello Lee , On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap.
For "fairly liberally" see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one).
In another post you asked essentially "why does ARIN charge so much?" ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6. You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the bums out if you don't like how we do things.
We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then we might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be financially solvent through the transition.
Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and worth it.
Lee Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different interpretation to the prose there .
<Quote> 6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations 6.5.8.1. Criteria To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or "demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA", or be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9. </Quote> Note the ""'d section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by definition , Qualified . I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable , I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space . Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded conversation ? Twyl , JimL ps: Back to haunting mode . -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network&System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello Lee ,
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap.
For "fairly liberally" see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one).
In another post you asked essentially "why does ARIN charge so much?" ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are HA servers for Whois, IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA, research in things like SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6. You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy, but if you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the bums out if you don't like how we do things.
We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then we might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be financially solvent through the transition.
Your ARIN fee does not cover me posting here. That's gratis, and worth it.
Lee Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different interpretation to the prose there .
<Quote> 6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations 6.5.8.1. Criteria
To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or "demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA", or be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9. </Quote>
Note the ""'d section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by definition , Qualified .
You must meet 1 (not be an IPv6 LIR) You must meet one of the criteria in 2. Any ONE of: + Qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation under current ARIN policy OR "demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must..." OR be a qualifying Community Network as defined in section 2.8...
I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable , I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space . Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded conversation ?
What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA? Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you? Owen
Twyl , JimL
ps: Back to haunting mode . -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network&System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 08 Apr 2010 12:42, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello Lee ,
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Lee Howard wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap.
For "fairly liberally" see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one).
Thank you for posting those URL's I find a completely different interpretation to the prose there .
<Quote> 6.5.8. Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations 6.5.8.1. Criteria
To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or "demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA", or be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9. </Quote>
Note the ""'d section above . I as a Legacy holder of netname baby-dragons HAVE to have a Signed RSA with Airn or I am NOT , by definition , Qualified .
The section you quoted is the second of the three-part "or" statement. Unfortunately, recent policy changes have made a mess of that text, so I'll offer an edited version that has the same meaning but is much clearer: "6.5.8.1. Criteria To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. one (or more) of the following: 1. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or 2. demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA, or 3. be a qualifying Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in section 6.5.9." IOW, even if you don't qualify under (b)(2) because you haven't signed an LRSA for your legacy space, you can still qualify under (b)(1) or (b)(3). Now, let's look at how one qualifies for (b)(1): "4.3.2. Minimum assignment 4.3.2.1 Single Connection The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is a /20. If assignments smaller than /20 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider. 4.3.2.2 Multihomed Connection For end-users who demonstrate an intent to announce the requested space in a multihomed fashion, the minimum block of IP address space assigned is a /22. If assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, multihomed end-users should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are assigned which are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved for that purpose. 4.3.3. Utilization rate Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. The basic criteria that must be met are: * A 25% immediate utilization rate, and * A 50% utilization rate within one year. A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization guidelines." So, if you are multi-homed, you would need a 25-50% utilization of a /22, or 256-512 hosts; if you are single-homed, you would need a 25-50% utilization of a /20, or 1024-2048 hosts. That is an extremely low bar for any org to automatically qualify for a IPv6 /48 (and a slot in every DFZ router).
I find the present lRSA an indecent attempt to undermine the present Legacy ipv4 holders view of the rights presented them at the time of their Assignments or Allocations . If I could find my OLD Ultrix Tarball or Dump tapes from that era , and they are still readable , I might just be able to present the conversations I had at that time with InterNIC while acquiring that Legacy Space . Might someone else have a Document or some other Recorded conversation ?
If you have any documents or recordings that show ARIN has _any_ existing contractual obligations to you regarding your legacy space, either directly or as legal successor of some other organization, please present it. I'm sure ARIN's legal counsel would be quite interested, but AFAIK no legacy holder has _ever_ been able to do so. Until such time as someone proves otherwise, we must assume that ARIN has _no_ obligations to you, and they could (if the community so desired) delete your unpaid, uncontracted registration from their database and assign/allocate those numbers to some other party, and there's not a damn thing you could do about it other than waste lots of money on a lawsuit you'd undoubtedly lose. Signing an LRSA protects you against that possibility--forever--at minimal cost. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net] It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap.
For "fairly liberally" see: For ISPs: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six51 You have to be an ISP with a plan to have 200 assignment in 5 years Non-ISP: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 Be not-an-ISP and have a need for addresses (per other policies, you get to choose which one).
In another post you asked essentially "why does ARIN charge so much?" ARIN doesn't just maintain a notebook of address assignments. There are HA servers for Whois,
Yeah, real expensive...
IN-ADDR. and IP6.ARPA,
Ditto...
research in things like SIDR, DNSsec, other tools-services, and educational outreach on IPv6.
None of which a RIR really /needs/ to do, of course.
You suggest that there's much less to argue about in IPv6 policy,
No, I argue there *could* be much less to argue about in IPv6 policy.
but if you look at current proposals (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/) you'll see three that are IPv6-specific, and most of the others cover both IPv4 and IPv6. So ARIN will continue to maintain the mailing lists, and hold public policy meetings (with remote participation, so anyone can participate), and facilitate elections so you can throw the bums out if you don't like how we do things.
None of which really addresses the point I made; that's the sound of a bureaucracy perpetuating itself.
We don't really know how much IPv6 will cost ARIN. If there were no more debate about allocation policies, and nobody else had any interest in us (politically or litigiously), and technology were fairly static, then we might just do periodic tech refreshes and be fine. I imagine all of those things will continue for a while, though, and ARIN will need to be financially solvent through the transition.
The point I was making is that after the "transition", the justification for ARIN is one of maintaining the status quo and perpetuating itself. My question was, what purpose is served by that? With IPv6 designed the way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if some questionable delegations are made? What's the purpose of having the complex legal agreements? Handing out numbers without much fuss worked okay in the early days of IPv4, before it became clear that there would be eventual depletion. IPv6 was designed to avoid the depletion scenario, and with that in mind, is there a good reason that a much smaller RIRv6 model wouldn't work? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
With IPv6 designed the way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if some questionable delegations are made?
Joe, You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations? Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out of IPv6 quickly. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
[changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content] On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
With IPv6 designed the way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if some questionable delegations are made?
Joe,
You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations?
Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out of IPv6 quickly.
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... Also, please note that the current policies and "waste" (ahem) is only for 2000::/3, if that runs out we can take another 7 looks at how we should distribute address space without "waste". Indeed the folks now getting IPv6 will have an IPv4 A-class advantage, but heck, if 2000::/3 is full, we finally can say we properly deployed IPv6 straight all around to the rest of the universe... Greets, Jeroen
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@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].
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.
Also, please note that the current policies and "waste" (ahem) is only for 2000::/3, if that runs out we can take another 7 looks at how we should distribute address space without "waste". Indeed the folks now getting IPv6 will have an IPv4 A-class advantage, but heck, if 2000::/3 is full, we finally can say we properly deployed IPv6 straight all around to the rest of the universe...
Very good point and likely our saving grace in v6. The space is big enough that we will get a sanity check after (possibly) burning through the first /3 much faster than expected. ~Chris [1] - "How much IPv6 is there?" http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
Greets, Jeroen
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@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
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. 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. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> To: "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann@gmail.com> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>; "Joe Greco" <jgreco@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 <jeroen@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
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" <owen@delong.com> To: "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann@gmail.com> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>; "Joe Greco" <jgreco@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)
[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
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote: 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
On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: 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
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.
The key question is "are you an ISP?". If the answer is yes, then the IPv6 equivalent is a /32 block. If no, then it depends on whether more than one site is involved, since the allocation size would be a /48 per site. IPv6 is a combination of classful and classless addressing. The result of that is that all allocations are sized to be more addresses than you could possibly ever need in the majority of cases.
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.
You fit under "Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations" and should have no problem getting a /48. If you need multiple sites then "IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks" would apply. --Michael Dillon
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:57 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) <nanog2@adns.net> 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.
John, IPv6 assignment is LAN-centric rather than address centric, so think about how many LANs you have. LANs are rigged to always be /64. Stateless autoconfiguration doesn't work right if they're bigger or smaller. You need a /64 for each LAN including the ones now served with RFC 1918 addresses. You'll want to set aside one /64 from which you'll assign /126's to your point to points and /128's to your router loopbacks. If you have downstream customers, even if they're just dialups, expect to assign at least a /60 to each one. Many folks recommend /56 or /48. Delegation on 4-bit boundaries is convenient in IPv6 the same way delegation on 8-bit boundaries is convenient in IPv4. Since your downstream customers may have an internal LAN and a DMZ, you'll want to provide at least two LANs by stepping up to the next 4-bit boundary above /64. ARIN details vary depending on whether or not your an ISP and whether you're connecting a single network or multiple sites independently connected to the Internet. I recommend you hire or befriend someone with experience interacting with ARIN who can go over your network's details with you. ARIN staff are friendly and helpful but there are some magic words and phrases that will get you the result you want and it can be hard to un-say the wrong thing. If you want to look before you leap, do a google search for "6to4" or get a free IPv6 tunnel via tunnelbroker.net. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
If you have downstream customers, even if they're just dialups, expect to assign at least a /60 to each one. Many folks recommend /56 or /48.
ARIN counts a /56 or a /48 per customer, your choice. There is no point in allocating less. More to the point, soon the IPv4 address shortage and the transition to IPv6 will hit the mainstream press, and hundred of writers will be writing advice columns about it. From their point of view, more for the customer at the same price is better, and I fully expect that they will be advising folks to make their ISP choice based on how much address space is allocated. If you allocate less than a /56 per customer, then you won't be able to sell to new customers or hang on to old ones. Just don't do it, because you are only damaging your own business. ARIN will not give you a discount or give you better terms just because you allocate a /60 to dialup customers. There is simply no benefit to you or to the networking community in allocating a prefix longer than /56. --Michael Dillon
On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content]
On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote:
You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations?
Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out of IPv6 quickly.
Ever noticed that fat /13 for a certain military network in the ARIN region!?
I think that was William's point.
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...
Both are questionable, it's just a matter of degree.
Also, please note that the current policies and "waste" (ahem) is only for 2000::/3, if that runs out we can take another 7 looks at how we should distribute address space without "waste".
Unfortunately, since address allocation policy is subject to the whims of the public policy definition process there is a risk (e.g., the proposal to allocate /24s of IPv6 if you knew the magic word or the proposals out of the ITU to allocate country blocks (/8s have been mentioned)). There is no finite resource that people can't waste. Regards, -drc
You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations?
10 years ago ARIN rarely allocated less than a /19 or a /20 in IPv4. And we are still breathing today.
Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out of IPv6 quickly.
Fortunately, there haven't been any questionable IPv6 delegations noticed anywhere yet. --Michael Dillon P.S. A block of /19 in IPv4 is the same percentage of the total IPV4 address space as a block of /19 in IPv6 is of the total IPv6 address space.
On 04/08/2010 11:00 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues ("you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any reason, as we see fit")?
I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would be under v6. Even if space were obtained under false pretenses, the cost of reclaiming it (in terms of lawsuits, etc) is essentially being shoveled onto the shoulders of others who have received allocations.
As I understand it ARIN does not like to reclaim space forcibly for this very reason. It's costly and they'd much rather resolve matters amicably and allow people to keep their resources. It's true that anyone that does accept terms to their IP allocations opens the possibility up, but recall that ARIN has a open and public policy making process. If they are going to change something and begin demanding IPs back from certain holders, if you are attentive to the process you should have plenty of opportunity to a) find out, and b) make your displeasure very clear. If you are a member, paying your dues, you also have the right to vote for those people who make the final decisions. But more to the point, how often do you hear that ARIN has decided to come to any IPv4 holder and just take back their allocation without cause?
It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap.
This is the current policy, even with respect to IPv4 to a large degree, at least for ARIN. As long as you can establish a fairly evident need for portable address space and can give them a vague plan for allocating it over time, they'll give you want you want, as long as you can pay the appropriate (and I feel quite reasonable) annual fees. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867
participants (14)
-
Chris Grundemann -
David Conrad -
David Hubbard -
Jeroen Massar -
Joe Greco -
John Palmer (NANOG Acct) -
Kevin Stange -
Lee Howard -
Michael Dillon -
Mr. James W. Laferriere -
N. Yaakov Ziskind -
Owen DeLong -
Stephen Sprunk -
William Herrin