North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Fri Nov 12 11:57:30 2004
Hmmm....It walks like a duck:
Can be advertised to any v6 ISP.
Talks like a duck:
Does not have to be returned to ISP when changing transit providers.
Floats like a duck:
Provides globally unique v6 addresses to said organization

Must be made of wood and so it must be a witch.

I don't care whether you want to call it PI space or not, the bottom line
is that it has all the same practical uses and effect as PI space, and,
this is exactly what the real world is likely to do with v6 for any
organization that wants to multihome without renumbering. They'll get
an AS and they'll get a /32, and, suddenly, each department within the
company will become a "customer" of the IT-ISP department.

I'm not saying this is clean, friendly, nice, whatever. However, it is
what people are really going to do with the current v6 address allocation
policies.

Owen

--On Friday, November 12, 2004 9:27 AM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]> wrote:

On 12-nov-04, at 5:03, Paul Vixie wrote:


There is currently no PI in IPv6 unless you're an internet exchange or
a root server.



...but i really do think of 2001:4f8::/32 as PI, even though ISC is
neither
an IX nor a rootserver.  (f-root has its own /48, which is something
else.)



ARIN says:

NetRange:   2001:04F8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 -
2001:04F8:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:F
FFF:FFFF:FFFF
CIDR:       2001:04F8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/32
[...]
NetType:    Direct Allocation

I don't exactly know what this means, but something called "allocation"
that's bigger than what a single organization could possibly need for its
own use doesn't smell like PI to me.





--
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.



Attachment:
pgp00026.pgp

Description: PGP signature