[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom
nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt
Wed Mar 30 10:33:42 CEST 2011
The way to go is for you to establish as an LIR. (Small or Extra Small). http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/become-a-member regards, --nvieira ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > A have made a request for a IPv6 PI / 48 allocation for my hosting > facility. > I am mostly hosting shared services, but I also have a lot of > Co-located services for my customers. > I am already multihomed to have redundancy from two ISPs for IPv4 and > I am going to setup the IPv6 Network the same way. > My ASN is 196704, and I am multihoming trough IP-Only (AS12552) and > Telenor (AS8434). > My sponsoring LIR says that I can get an assignment from their > PA-space right away, BUT then I would not be multi-homed, so that is > NOT an option. > The answer I get from you (RIPE) is: > You mentioned that several of the subnets will be used to provide > services to your customers (LEON Hosting, Co-location/Dedicated > servers). > Unfortunately current IPv6 address assignment and allocation policy > does not permit the use of IPv6 PI address space for these services. > At this time IPv6 PI address space cannot be used for any service > where a customer would receive a subnet of IP space (including a > single IP). Therefore it cannot be used for colocation services, > dedicated servers, SSL certificates etc. > There is currently a discussion on exactly this subject within the > RIPE community. Ventiro AB are welcome to sign up for the mailing > list and join the discussion. You can find the mailing list here: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/ripe-lists/address-policy-wg > I need to be multihomed because i feel its safer to have redandancy > from separate upstreams with separate infrastructure than buying the > redundancy from one provider. > My business is to keep servers running in my hosting facility, part > of them owned by me, part of them owned by the customers. > Some servers are shared among several customers, some are dedicated > to one customer only. > With todays technology as far as I know I must have separate IPs for > SSL-enabled services. > Is it RIPEs hidden agenda to put small hosting facilitys out of > business with IPv6 and force all customers to use the bigger ISPs? > When I requested my IPv4 PI allocation, I was already planning to > also run with IPv6 to be prepared for the future and somehow try to > help with the transition to IPv6, so people dont have the arguments > that we dont use IPv6 because there is no services, its now so much > services from a global point of view, but it wouldnt be IPv4 > only.... > So what should I do? What are my options? > // Janne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110330/edcf8105/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]