[arin-ppml] Linking IPv4 allocations to IPv6

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Thu Jul 17 14:42:24 EDT 2008


This doesn't have to be this difficult or complicated.  Every IPV4
request should also get a /xx if IPv6 if it does not already exist.
There should be no requirement to use or route the IPv6 block.  The end
user can use it as PI, PA, whatever they want, or not at all.  If /xx is
a /32, or even a /34, there are very few organizations (on a global
scale) that will actually utilize a significant percentage of an IPv6
/32.  So we give people too many IPv6 addresses..  what is the problem?
 
Excess route advertisement is simple..  if you are not going to publicly
route it, don't advertise it.  If you don't advertise it then it doesn't
consume a slot.  To my  mind this is the only distinction between IPv6
public space and IPv6 private space.  If you are going to route part of
your block and not another part, advertise the whole block (or one
contiguous block) in one aggregate statement, and access list at your
edge the parts of the advertised block you do not want to route.  This
minimizes route slots consumed and gives you complete control over how
you want to utilize your IPv6 block without having to deal with any
authority.  It also makes routing "private" space between peers, or
inter-area tunnelling trivial.
 
IPv4 requests are going to get tougher.  Simple.  There is no policy
that will guarantee availability of IPv4 space to everyone or anyone
forever.  When it is gone we cannot manufacture more.  Well, we can, by
adding more bits to the address space..  hmm..  that sounds like IPv6
 
Every host does not have to be dual stack..  only your edge hardware
needs to be dual stack..  you can translate at your edge if needed..
there is facility built in to IPv6 for v6/v4 one to one translation by
prepending the IPv4 address with your IPv6 network segment..  voila, it
routes and there was no internal renumbering..  Cisco hardware does this
today.
 

________________________________

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of heather skanks
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:46 PM
To: Chris Grundemann
Cc: ARIN PPML; Lee Dilkie
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Linking IPv4 allocations to IPv6




On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Chris Grundemann
<cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:




	I think that there could be some compromise reached between
forcing
	every node on someones network to be dual stacked and just
giving out
	ipv6 space to everyone with no requirement for use.
	
	Maybe (as you suggest) ARIN should give out a /32 (or other
block) to
	every AS, no questions asked.  Then, based on the knowledge that
they
	have the v6 space, you build some requirements for requesting
more v4
	space.  I think most will agree that requiring every host to be
dual
	stacked would both provide the most benefit and also be
virtually
	impossible to enforce.  Maybe instead, the requirement should be
	simply advertising the v6 block.  


Are you suggesting give out /32 PI to every AS?  

If so:
 Please don't add 40-50k routes to the global internet routing table if
people aren't actually using them.  
 You might want to make a clarification that you verify that the ASN is
still in use and the organization actually wants PI vs PA - before
assigning it a /32. 

If doing this through PA is also acceptable - you'd have to give larger
allocations to ISP's.  Their actually are some organizations that do not
want to obtain and maintain their own IP space. 



	This would require the organization
	to get some sort of ipv6 transit service and would thus
encourage them
	to actually utilize it.  


No it would encourage them to route it - which is not the same as using
it. 
 

	It would also help push the demand for v6
	transit.  Another possible requirement is that the organizations
	public website have a AAAA record from the previously assigned
/32 (or
	whatever size block).  I think that these two requirements are
easily
	measurable and would noticeably affect ipv6 adoption rates.
	


This last idea, is not *so* bad ..in that it gives you a means to
measure - and is along the lines of the 'demonstrate you are making some
effort with v6' requirement that's been suggested.  However it pushes
enforcement to the part of the cycle when they come back for IP's.  

Some considerations.. 

I ask for IPv4 
I get IPv4 + IPv6 and get told to put our public website on IPv6 as well
I come back for more IPv4 - and then what?  
Do I get denied because I have enough IP's with IPv6?  
What if my public website is available on v6 -- but I want more v4 for
my customers?
Do I get denied because my public website isn't reachable by an IP in
the IPv6 allocation I got?  
What if it's reachable on some other IPv6 IP?
What if I contract out my public website to some company who doesn't do
IPv6 yet despite all my requests for them to do it... and the IP's I'm
asking for are for my corporate network, or my customers?   I have to
change webhosting vendors in order to be able to have my website on v6,
in order to be able to get more IP's for the rest of my business?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080717/428c1581/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list