[arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks
kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Feb 22 17:42:27 EST 2010
> In PP#107, the standard I'm trying to work from is justified operational
> need. I think even for IPv6 the standard shouldn't just be, I want it
> and here is my check. I would like to see it be more like, I need it,
> here is why, and here is my check. And, if the "why" is a common
> standard reason, it shouldn't take much more that telling ARIN what your
> reason is, like "I'm multihoming to the Internet". If you want
> addresses for less standard reasons, you should still be able to get
> them, but you might need to provide more information for your
I still think that needs-based allocation is antiquated IPv4 thinking. What does it matter if someone gets some IPv6 space they don't need right now? Would it be a bad thing if every household in the world got a /48 just because they wanted to? Even if they are a single homed so what?
The world may need to figure out how to route all those /48's, but that is not for ARIN to dictate. When it becomes a reality the world will figure out a way to make it work. Do I have all the answers right now? Of course not. Do I trust human ingenuity to figure it out? Of course I do.
> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > 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
> >>> 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
> >>> 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)
> >>> 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
> >> multihomed to immediately get an IPv6 assignment, regardless if you had
> >> a direct assignment from ARIN. But I thought the IPv4 direct
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> ===============================================
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML