[AusNOG] IPv4

Tony td_miles at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 3 19:07:23 EST 2013

Forgive me if the thinking on this has changed, but my unerstanding was that for multihoming as an "end-user" is not an acceptable reason to get an IPv6 allocation. You are supposed to get some address space from both/all of your upstreams and some magic to make your servers dual-IPv6-homed on the addresses given to you from upstreams. There probably some RFC's on this and making it happen that someone else might be able to fill in the blanks ?

I have no idea if this is still in place, but APNIC policy seems to indicate that if you have an IPv4 allocation already (as ISP or end-user) then you'll get some IPv6 automatically. If you do NOT have an IPv6 allocation already then you need to meet the criteria just for IPv6, which are:

* Must be an LIR
* Not be an end site
* Plan to announce IPv6 within two years

The idea being that allocation will be a lot more heirarchical (IR->RIR->LIR) to prevent a whole heap of /48's being advertised into the global routing table, so that it is mostly /32's and above to prevent bloat of routing tables (like has happened with IPv4 people advertising /24's instead of the aggregate larger prefix).

So the reason you can't get a small IPv6 allocation just for multihoming is that you're not supposed to be able to (unlike IPv4 where this is a valid reason for getting address space).

I'm not sure if it was on this milaing or another, but I recently saw a link to this doc on IPv6 subnetting:



(apologies if I've grasped the wrong end of the stick)

> From: Paul Gear <ausnog at libertysys.com.au>
>To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net 
>Sent: Sunday, 3 March 2013 5:14 PM
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv4
>I just sent a message privately to James about this very topic, but now that it has been brought up, perhaps it's worth sharing with the list:
>Something that don't understand is: why isn't there a larger price
      difference (from APNIC's perspective) between IPv4 and IPv6, and
      why isn't there a larger price difference between developing and
      developed economies?
>I would have thought that if IPv6 adoption is an economic problem,
      part of the answer would be to dramatically lower cost barriers to
      entry for IPv6.  I run a single-person small business, and i would
      love to be IPv6 enabled, but because i'm multi-homed through two
      consumer-grade ISPs, i can't do IPv6 without getting my own
      allocation.  The minimum price to spend with APNIC is $1,180 per
      year to get this (disregarding membership fees for the time
      being), and that gets me anything up to a /34.  Cost from there
      climbs rather rapidly, with /33 = $1,534 and /32 = $1,994.  But
      even the minimum is more than i pay for my entire year's Internet
      access from my primary ISP.
>If the minimum of $1,180 were eliminated and one followed the IPv6
      pricing down the chain to /48, the costs would represent pretty
      minimal barriers to entry for smaller organisations:
>Prefix /56 blocks Cost 
>32 16777216 $1,994.20 
>33 8388608 $1,534.00 
>34 4194304 $1,180.00 
>35 2097152 $907.69 
>36 1048576 $698.22 
>37 524288 $537.10 
>38 262144 $413.15 
>39 131072 $317.81 
>40 65536 $244.47 
>41 32768 $188.05 
>42 16384 $144.66 
>43 8192 $111.27 
>44 4096 $85.60 
>45 2048 $65.84 
>46 1024 $50.65 
>47 512 $38.96 
>48 256 $29.97 
>The other thing i think would help in relation to this would be
      eliminating (or dramatically reducing) the associate membership
      fee for IPv6-only allocations.  This would put usable IPv6
      allocations within the reach of any organisation in any of the
      economies that APNIC serves.
>I don't know where the appropriate place to raise this issue is,
      but i would really like to see it considered.
>On 03/03/2013 04:47 PM, Don Gould wrote:
>You missed my point.  Sorry clearly I wrote it badly. 
>>I'm not an APNIC member.  I just want to have a play to grow my
>>In the past we all just used to help each other out and stuff just
      'got done'. 
>>To me, this whole debate is just a joke.  I remember when 'we'
      used to be the tight internet community raging against the 'telco
      PSTN' community, forging into new ideas, just making stuff happen. 
>>As we've grown up it feels like we've lost our youthful spirit of
      community and just making stuff happen.  We seem to have become
      the monster we all used to hate on. 
>>Sure, I can email helpdesk at apnic....  but I'm quite sure I'll get
      refered to some member ship forms and have to go find myself
      $3,000 before I can play. 
>>Spence's point was that you could just email some dude called
      Geoff... he was everyone's mate, that guy who shows up at the
      meetings, seems to know his stuff, writes an interesting blog and
      hung around one of the uni's that some of us went to. 
>>Now it's some faceless, nameless email address with no
      personality, no love, no sense of 'if ya willing to step up to ask
      and give it a go then we'll give you some resource to support
>>...wonder if I better explained my thoughts? 
>>On 3/03/2013 7:34 p.m., Jeremy Visser wrote: 
>>On 03/03/13 17:18, Don Gould wrote: 
>>>With respect to APNIC, has James highlighted and problem in the world 
>>>>we're now living? 
>>>>Who do I 'just email' to get a v6 block that I can announce? 
>>>helpdesk at apnic.net 
>>>There is probably a more specific way to request a v6 block, but
>>>helpdesk will point you in the right direction. It's what they
        get paid 
>>>to do. :-) 
>>>At my work, we have a /21 of IPv4 allocated to us. Because a /21
        of IPv4 
>>>costs more than a /32 of IPv6, we don't pay anything extra for
        our IPv6 
>>>Thus made it very easy to justify playing with IPv6 to the boss.
>AusNOG mailing list
>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130303/56eeb087/attachment.html>

More information about the AusNOG mailing list