Re: IPv6 multihoming

[Vlad Ion <vlad.thoth@gmail.com>]

Andy thanks for the heads up. I didn't know it was that easy to obtain a /48 as PI space from RIPE. 

The issue that Patrick mentioned about the internet in v6 looking more like the holes in swiss cheese still remains. I proposed the conversion of the existing space in 6to4 form as a simple means of providing direct access to the existing v4 internet hosts from any v6 island while moving the translation from the new v6 user.island to those still using v4 space that will start to announce it in v6 form as well. I think that this is a huge step towards encouraging more organizations to switch their networks to pure v6.

I do agree that organizations with scattered v4 blocks should announce a larger v6 block instead of several small ones and that's why I think the RIRs should provide all organizations currently having v4 space with free v6 blocks so they'll see financial point from the free addresses in providing their new and existing customers with v6 addresses as well.

I really appreciate this discussion especially from that educational and advocacy point of view you mentioned because it is pretty hard to find the necessary information on v6 at the moment and have it clearly available especially to the sales people that take the major decisions in any deployment project.

Best regards,
Vlad

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote:

On 25/01/2010 08:55, Vlad Ion wrote:
> I propose that the 6to4 ip conversion space from ipv4 addresses to
> 2002::ipv6 space will be redefined as provider independent address
> space. This way whoever wants to implement ipv6 with multi-homing can
> simply redefine their existing IPv4 addresses in IPv6 6to4 format and
> have multi-homing in ipv6.

Sorry, this scares me.

It is not difficult to get IPv6 PI from the RIRs I have experience with.

For example, in Europe, obtaining a single /48 IPv6 PI is a quick
process.  Obtaining it in this way means that unused v4 is not recycled
as spoofable v6, and that organisations with tens of v4 unjoined
prefixes need not announced tens of unjoined v6 prefixes when they migrate.

I commend you for thinking about ways to encourage networks to adopt v6,
but I think that education and advocacy is more future-proof than
migrating the v4 swap to v6.

Andy