[AusNOG] IPv4

Sun Mar 3 19:49:42 EST 2013

Ahh Tony,  This is where you learn the difference between an 'Allocation'
and an 'Assignment'.

An 'Allocation' is for Service providers in which they can delegate further.

An 'Assignment' is for end sites.

Go to the bottom of the page.

IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment
 *Criteria* *Associated policy*
Direct assignment of IPv6 addresses is possible where an organization can
demonstrate a valid circumstance to APNIC, in accordance with applicable
policies. For examples, please refer to Section 7.2.1 Initial Assignments
of the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy"

Note: The minimum assignment under this policy is a /48.

Multi-homing is a valid circumstance.

...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 7:43 PM, Tony <td_miles at yahoo.com> wrote:

> That's the IPv4 tab, click on the link "Check IPv6". Which is where I got
> the list of criteria I already copied:
>
> * Must be an LIR
> * Not be an end site
> * Plan to announce IPv6 within two years
>
> "A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns address
> space to the users of the network services that it provides. LIRs are
> generally ISPs, whose customers are primarily end users and possibly other
> ISPs."
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Skeeve Stevens <skeeve+ausnog at eintellegonetworks.com>
> *To:* Tony <td_miles at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Paul Gear <ausnog at libertysys.com.au>; "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <
> ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 3 March 2013 6:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] IPv4
>
> 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/f5aaa10f/attachment.html>