farmer at umn.edu
Tue Feb 12 00:35:47 CET 2013
On 2/11/13 16:26 , Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 02:13 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> Indeed. I would still maintain that a medium size
>> enterprise/organisation should be able to acquire and use IPv6 PI.
> I haven't kept up with this as much as I should, but are the RIRs
> handing out PI space to orgs that don't have ASNs nowadays?
There have been a number of changes, and there my still be some in
process depending on the region. Since you seem to be in the ARIN
region, I'll provide you a pointer to ARIN's current policy.
For ARIN, there are several justifications for IPv6 end user
assignments, this simplest for most is if you have an IPv4 end user
assignment a IPv6 assignment is automatically justified. The current
policy is fairly liberal for justifying more than a /48 as well. If you
are going to use an IPv6 routing slot, your might as well get enough to
last you for a long time.
Most anybody who wants IPv6-PI can get it if they want it, it not free
and it probably never will/should be. And you have a valid point, that
not everyone whats to deal with IPv6-PI.
While I personally dislike (maybe even hate) NAT, I think it is rude and
not very effective to tell people they have to redesign their network to
go from IPv4 to IPv6. On this point is IPv6 should be "96 more bits and
no magic". However, far to many people want to make IPv6 a NAT free
zone, which I worry may cause the ultimate failure of IPv6.
I believe it is far more important to get the whole world doing IPv6
than it is to make the world NAT free. While I support both, one is
clearly a necessity, and the other is only a nice to have.
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
More information about the ipv6-ops