[arin-ppml] Preemptive IPv6 assignment
>>>>> "William" == William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> writes:
William> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Brian Johnson
William> <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
>>> "Why not look in the BGP table, take every announced ARIN AS
>>> number and preemptively assign IPv6 addresses to each associated
>>> organization that doesn't already have them? Not forever of
>>> course... give it three years and then the assignments evaporate
>>> unless claimed by signing an RSA and paying the annual fees."
>> AS assignment != demonstrated need.
William> I agree. That's why I said _announced_ AS numbers, not
William> merely assigned.
William> If there's a credible reason to believe that folks
William> announcing IPv4 routes with their own AS number today will
William> radically change course and deploy IPv6 without announcing
William> their own IPv6 routes tomorrow, I haven't heard it
William> yet. Have you?
William> I claim that anyone actually announcing routes with a
William> registry AS number has demonstrated a defacto need for
William> registry IPv6 addresses.
I just wish that BGP4 announced both IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes on either v4
or v6 transports. I think that there isn't anything preventing it in
the protocol, but all the routers I've seen announce
v4-over-v4-transport and s/4/6/.
Why do I wish this? Because the enterprise that has his new IPv6 prefix
can then just announce it upstream. One of three things happens:
a) the upstream router dies because it's not just not IPv6-enabled,
but it's IPv6-intolerant (router gets replaced, or ISP gets
b) some SNMP trap or log entry announces to upstream ISP that they
have another customer who is now IPv6 enabled, whose needs they
are not serving.
c) it just works, turns out the upstream is IPv6 enabled, but nobody
thought it important to tell the customers.
] Michael Richardson, -write something here- [
] mcr at novavision.ca http://www.novavision.ca/ [
] mcr at credil.org http://www.credil.org/ [
] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ [