shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
kloch at hotnic.net
Wed Mar 1 19:49:15 UTC 2006
Kevin Day wrote:
> If you include "Web hosting company" in your definition of ISP, that's
> not true. Unless you're providing connectivity to 200 or more networks,
> you can't get a /32. If all of your use is internal(fully managed
> hosting) or aren't selling leased lines or anything, you are not
> considered an LIR by the current IPv6 policies.
Leased lines are not required. You can assign a /48 to any
separate organization you provide connectivity to even if they are
colocated. A business model where you don't assign /48's to any
customers does seem to preclude being an LIR. Web hosting companies
that do assign /48's to some customers would qualify.
> Even the proposed ARIN 2006-4 assignment policy for "end sites" doesn't
> help a lot of small to mid sized hosting companies. For that, to just
> get a /48, you need to already have a /19 or larger, and be using 80%
> of that. That's 6553 IPs being utilized. If you're running a managed
> hosting company (name based vhosts) and deploying 1 IP per web server,
> you're pretty huge before you've hit 6553 devices. Even assuming 20% of
> that is wasted, you're still talking about more than 5000 servers. 40
> 1U servers per rack, you need to have 125 racks of packed to the gills
> servers before you'd qualify for PI space. That excludes every
> definition I have of "small-to-medium" in the hosting arena.
The latest revision of 2005-1 is also on the table. It would allow
for a /48 assignment for any organization that qualifies for IPv4 space,
(even /22). Name based virtual hosting is not required either.
> You don't get PI space, and Shim6 is looking like your only alternative
> for multihoming.
We are only limited by our own imaginations and and by what actually
works. This is a hard problem to solve and the solution doesn't have
to come from the IETF.
More information about the NANOG