Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Zaid Ali zaid at zaidali.com
Tue Feb 3 12:19:26 CST 2009


I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the willingness 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 systems 
   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 with your fellow AS neighbors. The elephant in the room is the applications that ride on your network.

Zaid

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Marquis" <marquis at roble.com>
To: 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





More information about the NANOG mailing list