Re: "Running out of IPv6" (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacyIP4 Space)

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:57 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:

> What I would need if I were to go with IP6 would be to have a parallel address for every one of
> my current addresses. Right now we have 2 - legacy /24's and one legacy /23 - thats it.
>
> I'd just need the "equivalent"  IP6 space. 
> We could just get that from our current provider (Steadfast in this case), but it would not
> be portable and with our root servers,  (INS - please, not interested in discussing the merits of ICANN vs Inclusive 
> Namespace), we would need portable IPs that wouldn't change.
The problem is that equivalent for IPv6 is not calculated on the host boundary.

N = the number of subnets you have in IPv4.
N * /64 = the bare minimum amount of IPv6 space you need.

If you are an ISP, then, it becomes a bit more complicated.

N = the number of customers you have that have a single subnet
O = the number of customers you have that are SO/HO or small business
        and can get by with a /56 and do not request more.
P = the rest of your IP transit customers.

(N+256(O)+65536(P)) * /64 = the bare minimum amount of IPv6 space you need
        for customers.  You must, then, add a /64 for each of your own infrastructure
        networks as well.

> ARIN does provide microallocations, but ICANN forced them to put "for ICANN approved
> root service only" into their policy for microallocations, so that leaves us out.
ICANN can't force anything into ARIN policy. If you want that wording changed in
ARIN policy, you can submit a policy proposal. If it gains community consensus,
the wording will change and ICANN/IANA will have to live with that.

IANA policies are set through a bottom up process that comes from the RIRs,
not the other way around.

Owen
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com>
> To: "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann () gmail com>
> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org>; "Joe Greco" <jgreco () ns sol net>
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: "Running out of IPv6" (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacyIP4 Space)
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org> wrote:
> > > > [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content]
> > > > On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote:
> > > > > Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out
> > > > > of IPv6 quickly.
> > > The bottom line (IMHO) is that IPv6 is NOT infinite and propagating
> > > that myth will lead to waste. That being said, the IPv6 space is MUCH
> > > larger than IPv4. Somewhere between 16 million and 17 billion times
> > > larger based on current standards by my math[1].
> > Agreed
> > > > Ever noticed that fat /13 for a certain military network in the ARIN
> > > > region!?
> > > > At least those /19 are justifyiable under the HD rules (XX million
> > > > customers times a /48 and voila). A /13 though, very hard to justify...
> > > Not every customer needs a /48. In fact most probably don't.
> > Whether they need it or not, it is common allocation/assignment
> > practice. I agree that smaller (SOHO, for example) customers should
> > get a /56 by default and a /48 on request, but, this is by no means
> > a universal truth of current practice.
> > Owen