[arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks

[David Farmer]

This is wondering into a different subject so, I'm starting a new one.

Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>>
>> I concur as well. And if we want to hand out addresses for "may be
>> connected in the future" instead then they should meet the same
>> criteria as the ones for "are connected single-homed now."
>>
>>   
> As long as those criteria cover "plan to soon be multihomed" 
> situations... for example, I might be a large corporation preparing to 
> deploy IPv6, have 4 IPv4 transit providers, and only one of them can do 
> IPv6 today... so clearly when more of my transit providers can do v6, 
> I'll be multi-homed. There should be no reason to renumber in this case.
> 
> I presume that this is already how it works, just like I can get an AS 
> number because I am ordering circuits to (but am not yet present at) an 
> exchange point.

So assuming you have a direct assignment of IPv4 from ARIN today, then 
in PP#107, you don't need to be multihomed to immediately get an IPv6 
assignment.  By the fact you have an IPv4 assignment directly from ARIN 
you qualify for an IPv6 assignment.

However, if you have IPv4 assignment from your provider then, you 
wouldn't automatically qualify for IPv6 because of a direct assignment 
from ARIN.  If you were IPv6 multihomed or immediately becoming 
multihomed, they you would qualify for an IPv6 assignment otherwise you 
would need to provide a more detail justification for an assignment.

I had thought about a clause in PP#107, that allowed those that are IPv4 
multihomed to immediately get an IPv6 assignment, regardless if you had 
a direct assignment from ARIN.  But I thought the IPv4 direct assignment 
would handle the majority of the cases, and wasn't sure it was actually 
needed.  If you think it is, I'd be willing to rethink that and probably 
add it in.

I believe for PP#106 there would be a separate block of addresses for 
multihomed assignments.  Therefore, you would have to renumber when you 
  become multihomed. Currently, I oppose this idea in PP#106, I think 
segregating assignment or allocation based on criteria other that size 
is a really bad idea.  With the possible exception of networks that 
never intend to be connected.  But that belongs back on the other 
subject line.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================