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

Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]

  • From: Marshall Eubanks
  • Date: Sat Sep 10 06:24:35 2005

Google == AS 15169 which has 100 prefixes announced in my BGP.

I suspect they could qualify for IPv6 address space under any criteria. I know
they could arrange to qualify, simply by buying an appropriate ISP. They've got the cash.

However, there are two proposals to ARIN to allow direct "micro"
assignments to end sites, these are supposed to be merged into one by the 16th of this month, so people interested should go over to the ARIN ppml and comment.

One issue is to what extent IPv6 tunnels should count towards multi-homing.

My personal feeling is that, having gotten 2002-3 through ARIN, this should pass
eventually.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Sep 10, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:


[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]


perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :)


On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:


On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:



Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service
providers
(with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what
policy
proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the
current
policy?




what if they didn't ask for a prefix but instead just hammered their

providers for /48's? What's the difference to them anyway?

(provided we

are just talking about them lighting up www.google.com in v6 of

course)



If they wanted to start offering more 'services' (ip services

perhaps?)

then they could say they were a 'provider' (All they need is a plan
to

support 200 customers to get a /32) and start the magic of
/32-ness...


Suppose they not only have no plan but couldn't really put together a
plan to support 200 customers?  Does this mean Google, or any other
content provider, is "unworthy" of globally routeable space?





apparently that's the plan yes, or so say the current decision

makers/policy-makers/'the-man'... take it up with them, in fact,
everyone

should be thinking this through as you are/have and thinking about the

implications of the current policies related to v6 address allocations,

subnetting 'standards' and even multi-homing.




IPv6 is a nice idea, and as soon as people realize that ISPs are not
the only organizations who have a need to multi-home - and I mean
really multi-home, not stupid work-arounds - then it might actually
start to happen.




Agreed, so... hopefully others will start to participate in the
process to

change things for the 'better'. To make sure that the
policies/procedures

are more closely aligned with operational requirements/needs. It seems

that lots of folks are of the belief that:

1) its not important to worry about this 'today'

2) the 'right decision' will get made and 'things will just work out'

3) 'certainly someone else will argue my point for me'



(or some combination of that grouping...) It looks to me, and I'm new
at

this so I may be wrong, that none of the above really is true :( The

current train for ipv6 is on the tracks and headed your way whether you

like it or not, and it's not headed your way to pick you up :(



The process/standards bodies need more operators to get involved so
that

standards we can deploy/live-with make it to fruitition.



Thanks for the tee :)



-Chris