nanog mailing list archives

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space


From: Matthew Huff <mhuff () ox com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:24:59 -0500

It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP address 
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 deploying 
ipv6, but not until then. That's not a technical issue, but rather a business 
decision, and it's not going to change. We aren't depending our network 
resources on an external third-party, especially given their track record.


----
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 () zaidali com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:19 PM
To: Roger Marquis
Cc: nanog () 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 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 () roble com>
To: nanog () 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


Attachment: Matthew Huff.vcf
Description:

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description:


Current thread: