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
marshall> discouraged.
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf