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

Sat Sep 10 10:23:03 UTC 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
>