[AusNOG] IPv4

Sun Mar 3 19:22:47 EST 2013

Fortunately you are wrong:

http://www.apnic.net/services/apply-for-resources/check-your-eligibility

*Criteria for small multihoming delegations*

   - An organization is eligible if it is currently multihomed with
   provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multihome within one
   month.
   - Organizations requesting a delegation under these terms must
   demonstrate that they are able to use 25% of the requested addresses
   immediately and 50% within one year.

**
Multi-homing is all you need.

...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Tony <td_miles at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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:
>
> http://www.ipbcop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BCOP-IPv6_Subnetting.pdf
>
>
> regards,
> Tony.
>
>
> (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.
>
> Regards,
> Paul
>
> 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 learning.
>
> 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 you'.
>
> ...wonder if I better explained my thoughts?
>
> D
>
> 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 the
> 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
> space.
>
> Thus made it very easy to justify playing with IPv6 to the boss. :-)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130303/da8132a4/attachment.html>