[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Joel Jaeggli]

John Santos wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 
>>
>> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>>> You run a large enterprise, you have some internal server 
>>>> things that you want v6 for but won't ever see the light of day.
>>>> These servers/nets may interconnect with business partners 
>>>> today or as you M&A your way info infamy.
>>>> You don't have 200 customers nor do you qualify for PI space 
>>>> (and you don't want that anyway), ULA doesn't provide enough 
>>>> uniqueness guarantee either...
>>> ULA random (FD00::/8) does not provide the uniqueness guarantee.
>>> There is another kind of ULA set aside for assignments to 
>>> organizations that would provide a uniqueness guarantee.
>> neither does rfc 1918... and yet, these same organzations run dozens of
>> parallel deployments of that.
> 
> That's what we're trying to fix.
> 
>> if you're got a deployment that big, how can you possibly not be able
>> come up with a justification for the appropriate sized pi prefix, or put
>> differently whose request for such a prefix has been denied?
>>
> 
> How big is "that big?"  We have about 200 hosts total, but private
> routes to 4 different customers.  Without our legacy class C, we
> would constantly be having to renumber in RFC1918 space.

So your pi /48 request has been denied?

the ipv6 nrpm states the following:

6.5.8.1. Criteria
To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
not be an IPv6 LIR; and 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.

*further reading backwards to 4.3.5*

4.3.5. Non-connected Networks

End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be
connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address
numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see RFC 1918). When
private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses
may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> We definitely could not qualify for PI under current rules.

Really?

> We've already encountered collisions within RFC1918 due to trying to be
> good net citizens and using RFC1918 for infrastucture, test networks,
> VPNs, etc.  Which is worse, having 100 people trying to renumber 20,000
> hosts or 1 person having to renumber 200 hosts?
> 
> 
>>> The problem is that the IETF has not yet figured out how
>>> to manage assignments of FC00::/8.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, there isn't currently an active Internet 
>>> draft on this topic.
>>>
>>> --Michael Dillon
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>