Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
owen at delong.com
Tue Feb 3 23:25:03 UTC 2009
On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now.
> As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48),
> APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this.
To clarify, you can get whatever size assignment you need, but, the
unless you request larger and can justify it is a /48. To put this in
a /48 is 65536*4billion*the total IPv4 address space. Further, it's
for 65,536 subnets with 64 bit host addresses. Likely, this is enough
end-user organizations, but, if you are part of an organization that
you can get it simply by justifying your additional needs.
> Yes, you have to pay for it, but the addresses will be yours, unlike
> the RFC1918 ranges which is akin to 2.4Ghz wireless.. lets just
> share and hope we never interconnect/overlap.
In the ARIN region, the end-user annual fees are quite low. I don't
see this as
a significant barrier to entry to most end-user organizations.
> I can't find a RFC1918 equivalent for v6 with the exception of
> 2001:0DB8::/32# which is the ranges that has been assigned for
> documentation use and is considered to NEVER be routable. In that /
> 32 are 65536 /48's... way more than the RFC1918 we have now.
There is the ULA-Random space, but, I'm not sure if that got ratified
rescinded. I really don't see a need for RFC-1918 in
the IPv6 world. RFC-1918 was intended to solve a problem with a
of address space by allowing disparate private networks to recycle the
numbers behind NAT or for use on non-connected networks. There is no
such shortage in IPv6. I think it is wiser to number non-connected
from valid unique addresses since there is no shortage.
> If I was going to build a v6 network right now, that was purely
> private and never* going to hit the internet, and I could not afford
> to be a NIC member or pay the fees... then I would be using the
> ranges above.... I wonder if that will start a flame war *puts on
> fire suit*.
I don't know what the APNIC fees and membership requirements are.
However, in the ARIN region, you do not need to be a member to get
address space. The renewal fee for end-user space is $100/year.
If you can't afford $100/year, how are you staying connected to the
network or paying to power your equipment?
> * never say never!
> # http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mhuff at ox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:25 AM
> To: 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis'
> Cc: 'nanog at nanog.org'
> Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
> It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP
> owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it is
> easy for us
> to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, we will look at
> ipv6, but not until then. That's not a technical issue, but rather a
> decision, and it's not going to change. We aren't depending our
> resources on an external third-party, especially given their track
> Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd
> OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
> http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039
> aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Zaid Ali [mailto:zaid at zaidali.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:19 PM
>> To: Roger Marquis
>> Cc: 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 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
>> 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.
>> ----- 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
>> 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
>>>> trillion IP addresses.
>>> Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of
>>> is that all requests are approved since there are no defined
>>> that would allow them to deny any. So far, nobody's shown interest
>>> plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step
>>> IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it...
>> Catch 22? From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular
>> fully supports NAT.
>> Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your
>> space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing
>> rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of
>> only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future.
>> Roger Marquis
More information about the NANOG