multiple prefixes

[Tim Chown]

On 11 Feb 2013, at 22:26, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> 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?

I believe all you need to do now is find a sponsoring LIR, and meet http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-552#IPv6_PI_Assignments; the multihoming requirement, at least in RIPEland, has apparently recently gone, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02.  

Maybe someone who really knows the latest status can put this to bed - or maybe policy has become divergent in different RIRs?

>> But it's perhaps easier to apply the "IPv4 way of thinking" to the
>> problem, which may lead them into NPTv6. Personally, I would rather
>> take the (relatively small) financial cost of PI than the
>> architectural cost of NPTv6. But each to their own, I guess.
> 
> NPTv6 for free, or hassle + $cost for IPv6 PI (if it's even available) ... to enterprises for whom OpEx is an infinitely more important factor than mythical devotion to an architecture that disappeared 15 years ago (namely, 99.9% of them) this is not even a decision.

PI avoids the architectural gotchas with NPTv6 though.  I guess it depends if your deployment scenario can avoid those.  Referrals being one case.

> If I went into the room and told my clients to do this I'd be laughed out of the room. It's way past time that people in the IPv6 ivory towers started paying attention to the real world.

Our worlds are 'real' to each of us :)

We've had a production IPv6 network for maybe 10 years. It's not PI, as our provider is pretty much a shoe-in, but it could be, and in similar networks in the US, it is.  For the complexity of network and applications, I'd not want to have to live with address translation, even NPTv6.  Maybe it's because most universities have lived without any form of NAT due to being early IPv4 adopters, with their internal network being largely or exclusively on public IPs, and the same "thinking" is being happily, even if you think it's naively, applied for IPv6.

Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20130211/000182de/attachment.htm>