[arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks
kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Feb 22 17:06:07 EST 2010
For my own edification, why are we treating IPv6 like it is a rare and precious commodity? Wouldn't it actually be better for the community if the requirement for the base level IPv6 allocation were simply filling out the request form and paying the fee?
This isn't like IPv4 where we needed to make sure that anyone who ever got any would actually use it.. I would suggest that the minimum assignment of IPv6 should be available simply for the asking (filling out the form with contact info) and payment of minimum fees.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:58 PM
> To: matthew at matthew.at
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks
> 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
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML