[arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)
Richard J. Letts
rjletts at uw.edu
Fri Feb 20 14:12:36 EST 2015
I have read the scenarios people have presented and I have not understood what the problem statement is.
Has anyone asked and failed to get IPv6 resources?
It looks to me like the problem statements are for really small businesses and caused by poor network design, or the assumption that having *both* ULA and global IPv6 addresses on the same host is going to be a problem.
e.g. why not use ULA internally on a network for internal resources, use provider-based RA assignments for external connectivity. Then you only have to manage site-to-site VPN connections for the ULA networks.
Switching external providers is a matter of updating router configs (adding new subnets to interfaces), and reconfiguring the site<>site VPN tunnels (all of which should be in the same engineering management domain), and NOT reconfiguring 126 hosts.
[business with 62-126 or more IPv4 addresses should be able to obtain at least one /24 of public IPv4 space and then apply for IPv6 space under 18.104.22.168(a)]
If you've a vendor<>customer VPN connection then that's a specific technical challenge -- I have several of these and they are *all* engineered differently and break in their own unique ways. I don't think it's possible to write a generic policy that covers what's needed to get these to work except 22.214.171.124(e) would appear to me to be the policy to apply for space under.
Has anyone failed to get space under that section?
Having justified the initial assignment criteria the initial assignment size is independent and the business should get sufficient space to cover the number of sites under 126.96.36.199
Like I said, I feel I'm not understanding if this is a real problem where businesses have actually been denied IPv6 address space?
More information about the ARIN-PPML