[AusNOG] another ipv6 Q

[Skeeve Stevens]

A /24 is $1180, a /48 is $1180.

http://submit.apnic.net/cgi-bin/feecalc.pl?ipv4=%2F24&ipv6=%2F32&action=Calculate

If you have a /24 and a /32, you will pay more because the IPv6 will be
$1994  (ex-GST prices)


...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/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Mitchell Warden <wardenm at wardenm.net>
wrote:

>  The RFC prohibits this. If you already have a /24, I don't think it will
> cost you any more in APNIC fees to add a /48.
>
>    6to4 prefixes more specific than 2002::/16 must not be propagated in
>    native IPv6 routing, to prevent pollution of the IPv6 routing table
>    by elements of the IPv4 routing table.  Therefore, a 6to4 site which
>    also has a native IPv6 connection MUST NOT advertise its 2002::/48
>    routing prefix on that connection, and all native IPv6 network
>    operators MUST filter out and discard any 2002:: routing prefix
>    advertisements longer than /16.
>
> Cheers.
> Mitchell
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Alex Samad - Yieldbroker [mailto:Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com]
> *To:* Skeeve Stevens [mailto:skeeve+ausnog at eintellegonetworks.com]
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net]
> *Sent:* Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:40:51 +1000
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] another ipv6 Q
>
>  Why, I didn’t say I wanted to use the ipv6 to ipv4 mechanism, I just
> want to use a /48 ipv6 range that nobody else can lay claim to.. well for
> as long as I have the ipv4 /24
>
>
>
> This was more of a thought problem than anything else.
>
> A
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Skeeve Stevens [mailto:skeeve+ausnog at eintellegonetworks.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 3 July 2014 10:36 AM
> *To:* Alex Samad - Yieldbroker
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] another ipv6 Q
>
>
>
> This is a strange question.
>
>
>
> One thing that some engineers don't seem to understand is that IPv4 and
> IPv6 have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  At no point do they
> communicate with each other unless some translation method is used... but
> that method is doing the interpretation.
>
>
>
> Even dual-stacking v4 and v6 on the same interface doesn't make them
> interact in any way whatsoever.
>
>
>
> ...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 ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>
> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
> The Experts Who The Experts Call
>
> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Alex Samad - Yieldbroker <
> Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> So we have a ipv4 class C assigned to us. What if any pitfalls are there
> for using the ipv4 in ipv6 address space ?
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140703/5a5570e2/attachment.html>