[arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment Requirements for IPv6

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Sep 13 13:44:05 EDT 2021

I disagree…

Renumbering a wisely deployed network in IPv6 is _MUCH_ less overhead and much much easier (and faster) in IPv6 than it was in IPv4, even on large-ish scales.

There’s on PA-ISP lockin in IPv6 unless you build your network stupidly.

If you use DHCPv6 or SLAAC to assign addresses to the majority of your systems and static address your servers only, renumbering is relatively quick and
not particularly painful.

	1.	Connect the new ISP and add the new ranges to the routers.
	2.	Add the new address range(s) to the servers.
	3.	Change your SLAAC RAs and DHCP servers over to announcing the new addresses
	4.	Wait until the old addresses are deprecated off the interfaces of all the clients.
	5.	Remove the old address range(s) from the servers.
	6.	Remove the old address ranges from the routers.
	7.	Disconnect the old ISP

Personally, if I were running an SMB IT department, I’d much rather face the above 7 steps for each ISP changeover than the joys of ULA+NPTv6.

OTOH, I’d probably just multi home in most cases, in which case, RIR /48 here I come, easy peasy, current policy.


> On Sep 13, 2021, at 09:38 , Larry R. Dockery <lrdocker at co.douglas.or.us> wrote:
> Aside from it making ULA+NTPv6 a smart move, perhaps even best practice for the majority of businesses to adopt rather than allow PA-ISP lock-in, no.
> With the mentioned routing issue not being sustainable however, my proposal is likely DOA.
> Thank you.
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> 
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 9:00 AM
> To: Larry R. Dockery <lrdocker at co.douglas.or.us <mailto:lrdocker at co.douglas.or.us>>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment Requirements for IPv6
> Is there a reason that you think the majority of small businesses that are not going to multi home should
> receive PI addresses rather than use PA?
> I’m neither in favor nor opposed at this time, but the answer to the above question is pivotal to whether
> this proposal serves an actual need or merely panders to the idea of PI for everybody, which until we
> change our routing technology to separate locators from identifiers isn’t sustainable.
> Owen
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 07:51 , Larry R. Dockery <lrdocker at co.douglas.or.us <mailto:lrdocker at co.douglas.or.us>> wrote:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2021/ARIN_prop_301_orig/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2021/ARIN_prop_301_orig/>
> I would like to hear community feedback on this proposal. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210913/74ce0844/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list