How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

Fri Oct 2 13:45:43 UTC 2015

I may be able to justify it to ARIN, but I can't make a quadrupling of ARIN's fees justifiable to me. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mel Beckman" <mel at beckman.org> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net> 
Cc: "nanog group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 8:35:41 AM 
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") 

Every provider gets a /32, according to ARIN. 

IPv6 - INITIAL ALLOCATIONS 
Type of Resource Request Criteria to Receive Resource 
	ISP Initial Allocation 
/32 minimum allocation 
(/36 upon request) 
NRPM 6.5.1 	

    * Have a previously justified IPv4 ISP allocation from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or 
    * Qualify for an IPv4 ISP allocation under current policy, or 
    * Intend to immediately multi-home, or 
    * Provide a reasonable technical justification, including a plan showing projected assignments for one, two, and five year periods, with a minimum of 50 assignments within five years 

	IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks 
/32 minimum allocation 
(/36 upon request) 
NRPM 6.11 	

    * be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities 

-mel via cell 

On Oct 2, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog at ics-il.net > wrote: 

Not all providers are large enough to justify a /32. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Philip Dorr" < tagno25 at gmail.com > 
To: "Rob McEwen" < rob at invaluement.com > 
Cc: "nanog group" < nanog at nanog.org > 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM 
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") 

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen < rob at invaluement.com > wrote: 

<blockquote>
On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: 

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>
IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>
rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>
still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's so 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>
their isn't infinite numbers of sites that a spammer can get. 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
A /48 can be subdivided into 65K subnets. That is 65 *THOUSAND*... not the 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
256 IPs that one gets with an IPv4 /24 block. So if a somewhat legit hoster 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
assigns various /64s to DIFFERENT customers of theirs... that is a lot of 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
collateral damage that would be caused by listing at the /48 level, should 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
just one customer be a bad-apple spammer, or just one legit customer have a 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
compromised system one day. 

</blockquote>

As a provider (ISP or Hosting), you should hand the customers at a 
minimum a /56, if not a /48. The provider should have at a minimum a 
/32. If the provider is only giving their customers a /64, then they 
deserve all the pain they receive. 

</blockquote>