Jari Arkko wrote:
Sure. But I understood Michael has nothing now, so from his
point of view its a question of getting either PI from ARIN or
PA from his provider.
No, it's PI from ARIN, or PA from *some* provider.
My immediate need is for space which is unique, and has whois and reverse
map. I don't need it to be routeable today. But, sh*t happens, and we notice
that eventually, everything needs some reachability to places you didn't
expect. I expect to need tunnels in some places to get routeable IPv6 into
places where there is none. I can get address space from existing IPv6
tunnel brokers, but in the long term, this may be unsustainable, since I
expect to push some significant traffic.
In any case, I expect to put equipment in places where there is presently
no IPv6, so a tunnel will become necessary anyway. A /48 is pretty damn big,
but if I have to get another /48 (in PA space), and break aggregation to
announce it wherever I can, I may do that. I could also use many /64s in
data centres that are IPv6 ready, however, this may complicate things.
The tunnels between data centres *may* be layer-2 tunnels to permit the
(virtual) hosts to migrate. There are scaling issues with this, and MIPv6
might be a better solution. This is more than a year away.
I have presently acquired enough address space from another place to
permit me to continue work. I thought that asking ARIN first made more sense.
marshall> I fully agree here. In fact, I would say that IPv6 will have truly
marshall> succeeded when business requests start coming in
marshall> that do _not_ want IPv4 space. This should be encouraged, not
I'm here. I'm bit more clueful about ARIN process than average.
Most businesses would have no idea what to do once ARIN said no.
Or, they'd just lie.
Ietf mailing list