[governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD

[McTim]

Hi again Ian,

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Thanks John, I appreciate your reply. But for the record, can you confirm
> exactly how many IP addresses have been allocated and/or reserved for US
> Dept of Defence?

The goal of a Public Network Information Databse such as ARIN WHOIS
service is so you can find this information yourself.

It is John's job to make sure this information is available via WHOIS,
but not to give you the actual net ranges.  You can do that yourself.

> (not all of us can read /16 or /13 and make sense of it).

The RIRs have this data available as well. Here is one link:

http://www.ripe.net/info/info-services/cidr.pdf

> It would be good to know the exact number. Can anyone give me authoritative
> information on this

ARIN WHOIS can:

NetRange:   2608:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 -
2608:03FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF
CIDR:    2608:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/22 as an example.

There are others I am sure, for example, H root server has a /48:

2001:0500:0001:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 -
2001:0500:0001:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF

(I can't believe I've just caved and done this for you)

, as media reports are widely different. Also, am I right
> that this is the largest allocation made to date?

Probably, as the US DoD is the largest holder of IPv4 space, it stands
to reason that they would have the same status in IPv6, no??

>
> I gather from your comments (and those passed on by McTim earlier) that an
> application of this size lead to a considerable amount of discussion and
> internal clarification before an allocation was made. Glad to hear it. But I
> am still puzzled as to what the documented need would be for such a large
> allocation.

Then perhaps you should Google a bit:
http://ipv6.com/articles/military/Military-and-IPv6.htm
http://www.usipv6.com/ppt/IPv6SummitPresentationFinalCaptDixon.pdf
http://www.usipv6.com/2003arlington/presents/Marilyn_Kraus.pdf

Seriously, you MUST change your mindset when thinking about IPv6, its
NOT the number of possible addresses, its the number of subnets.

Let's take the above /48 example for instance.  A /48 gives you 256
/56 subnets to assign.  256 is the number of IPs in a IPv4 /24, or if
you are old school, a Class C network.  H root probably only uses a
handful of these /56s (maybe only one, and then perhaps only one
single address of the entire /56), but that is ok, that is the way it
is meant to be!

Utilization of IPv6 addresses is NOT MEANT to be done in the same way
as in IPv4.  APNIC explains it quite well on:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy/text
"The actual usage of addresses within each assignment will be quite
low, when compared to IPv4 assignments. In IPv6, "utilization" is only
measured in terms of the bits to the left of the /56 boundary. In
other words, utilization refers to the assignment of /56s to end
sites, and not the number of addresses assigned within individual /56s
at those end sites. Throughout this document, the term utilization
refers to the allocation of /56s to end sites, and not the number of
addresses assigned within individual /56s within those end sites."

Your puzzled because you haven't had the IPv6 paradigm shift happen in
your head. Yet.

Read this blog post for more:
http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/

>
> However, as you say
>
>> ARIN isn't in a position to disclose the
>> application information related to any allocation, regardless of the nature
>> of the applicant
>
> Which, while understandable, is a great pity. We do have an international
> climate where the sometimes "special" relationship of internet governance
> groups with the US government is viewed with suspicion, and this large
> allocation without explanation will only fuel those fires.

John gave you the explanation:
"Allocations are made based on documented need in accordance with the
established policy.  Policy is determined by the community based on
the Policy Development Process, which is documented at:
<https://www.arin.net/participate/how_to_participate.html>."

Is it not the task of the IGF to put out those fires? This is capacity
building, which is the purpose of the IGF, no?

Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be
more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we
really want to put out these fires?

>
> Thanks again for being as open with your reply as you could as ARIN CEO. But
> of course I remain curious and I am sure others do as well.

And thanks for his follow up post, which I have just read after
composing this mail.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t