Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Tue Feb 3 22:05:46 UTC 2009

   The problem with that solution mainly being that the application itself
   still needs some sort of intelligence as well as the border device
   potentially doing L7 operations (header insertion/etc.) - unless you're
   OK with generally losing all information about the source of incoming
   traffic at the backend (except for looking at NAT tables...)
   -Dave
   Skeeve Stevens wrote:

With new dual-stack border devices people will be able to move bit by bit, and t
here is no real reason to have to run around and change everything that you have
 internally.  These will change and update over time.  These internal applicatio
ns aren't running on public IP addresses anyway.

...Skeeve

-----Original Message-----
From: Zaid Ali [[1]mailto:zaid at zaidali.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:19 AM
To: Roger Marquis
Cc: [2]nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the wi
llingness to. Technical issues can be resolved if you and people around you are
motivated to do so. I think there are some hard facts that need to be addressed
when it comes to IPv6. Facts like

1. How do we migrate to a IPv6 stack on all servers and I am talking about the
   thousands of servers that exist on peoples network that run SaaS,
    Financial/Banking systems.

2. How do we make old applications speak IPv6? There are some old back-end syste
ms
   that run core functions for many businesses out there that don't really have
any
   upgrade path and I don't think people are thinking about this.

>From a network perspective IPv6 adoption is just about doing it and executing w
ith your fellow AS neighbors. The elephant in the room is the applications that
ride on your network.

Zaid

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Marquis" [3]<marquis at roble.com>
To: [4]nanog at nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 9:39:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one
trillion IP addresses.

Are you sure?  According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy
is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria
that would allow them to deny any.  So far, nobody's shown interest in
plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if
IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it...

Catch 22?  From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it
fully supports NAT.

Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address
space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing
rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT
only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future.

Roger Marquis

References

   1. mailto:zaid at zaidali.com
   2. mailto:nanog at nanog.org
   3. mailto:marquis at roble.com
   4. mailto:nanog at nanog.org