North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
- From: Marshall Eubanks
- Date: Sat Sep 10 06:24:35 2005
Google == AS 15169 which has 100 prefixes announced in my BGP.
I suspect they could qualify for IPv6 address space under any criteria.
they could arrange to qualify, simply by buying an appropriate ISP.
They've got the cash.
However, there are two proposals to ARIN to allow direct "micro"
assignments to end sites, these are supposed to be merged into one by
the 16th of this month, so people interested should go over to the ARIN
ppml and comment.
One issue is to what extent IPv6 tunnels should count towards
My personal feeling is that, having gotten 2002-3 through ARIN, this
On Sep 10, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :)
apparently that's the plan yes, or so say the current decision
On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
what if they didn't ask for a prefix but instead just hammered their
Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service
(with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what
proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the
providers for /48's? What's the difference to them anyway?
are just talking about them lighting up www.google.com in v6 of
If they wanted to start offering more 'services' (ip services
then they could say they were a 'provider' (All they need is a plan
support 200 customers to get a /32) and start the magic of
Suppose they not only have no plan but couldn't really put together a
plan to support 200 customers? Does this mean Google, or any other
content provider, is "unworthy" of globally routeable space?
makers/policy-makers/'the-man'... take it up with them, in fact,
should be thinking this through as you are/have and thinking about the
implications of the current policies related to v6 address allocations,
subnetting 'standards' and even multi-homing.
Agreed, so... hopefully others will start to participate in the
IPv6 is a nice idea, and as soon as people realize that ISPs are not
the only organizations who have a need to multi-home - and I mean
really multi-home, not stupid work-arounds - then it might actually
start to happen.
change things for the 'better'. To make sure that the
are more closely aligned with operational requirements/needs. It seems
that lots of folks are of the belief that:
1) its not important to worry about this 'today'
2) the 'right decision' will get made and 'things will just work out'
3) 'certainly someone else will argue my point for me'
(or some combination of that grouping...) It looks to me, and I'm new
this so I may be wrong, that none of the above really is true :( The
current train for ipv6 is on the tracks and headed your way whether you
like it or not, and it's not headed your way to pick you up :(
The process/standards bodies need more operators to get involved so
standards we can deploy/live-with make it to fruitition.
Thanks for the tee :)