multiple prefixes

[David Farmer]

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.

https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58

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
================================================