RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

["Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve () skeeve org>]

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.

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.

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.

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*.

...Skeeve


* never say never!
# http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mhuff () ox com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:25 AM
To: 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis'
Cc: 'nanog () nanog org'
Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

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