[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Mon Feb 22 18:57:07 EST 2010

John Santos wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> 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:
>> 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 *are* connected to an ISP, but use NAT for that.  So are we
> connectedt or non-connected?

You stated that you have private non-internet customer interconnections.

>>> We definitely could not qualify for PI under current rules.
>> Really?
> Current rules require efficient use of a /22.  We have less than
> 200 hosts (including DHCP address ranges for employees, customers,
> and other vistors who need to hook up their laptops), and our
> growth rate is very slow (60 to 180 over 17 years.)

read again:

"or demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and

You've got an ipv4 allocation, you fill out the request, demonstrate
your current utilization, demonstrate the need for private
interconnection and the /48 is likely to be yours.

>>> 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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list