If you have any chance that you will need to address those servers from the public Internet, you should go for an allocation, in my opinion.
In RIPE NCC, with the existing policy, if you can show that those remote sites are a kind of "internal ISP" for your organization(s), then you could get an allocation. Of course, you could use 6to4 and then setup your own relays, manually configured instead of using the anycasted ones, but I think is much better to use a regular allocation. Regards, Jordi > De: Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:34:01 -0400 > Para: <ietf@ietf.org> > Asunto: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I have an application where I will have approximately 2000 hosts (many > of them virtualized) in a cabinet, and I will eventually have hundreds > of such cabinets spread around the world. > > Naturally, I want to directly address all such hosts, and it turns out > that IPv6 autoconfiguration is just perfect for these hosts. > > I also control all the operating systems, and all my operating systems > are IPv6 capable (although my PXE systems will run over IPv4 until the > systems are booted). I am willing to pay a registrar for some proper > IPv6 address space, specifically so that I can get the reverse map > properly delegated to me. > > This network will not likely to be announced in the default-free IPv6 zone. > (Of course, that's what Nortel, Apple, Ford, etc. said back when they got > their IPv4 /8's. Or rather, when Apple didn't..) > > Site-local addresses could be used, but they are distasteful to me for > all the reasons that they were deprecated, and all the reasons in > rfc1627. > (ARIN has suggested that I might consider site-local addresses) > > ARIN has asked told me: > (2) In order to receive an initial IPv6 assignment, you must > qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under > the IPv4 policy currently in effect. > > Well, the answer would be, for this use would be "use 10.x" network for > IPv4. That's why I asked for IPv6. > (none of the other rfc1918 spaces are big enough for my use, btw) > > I am very disappointed. I don't expect anyone to go and fix ARIN. > I am simply posting to express myself. > > I also have heard that RIPE isn't so non-sensical. > It looks like I will use 6to4 to form my own /48. > > - -- > ] Bear: "Me, I'm just the shape of a bear." | firewalls > [ > ] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net > architect[ > ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device > driver[ > ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); > [ > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Finger me for keys > > iQEVAwUBRuf42ICLcPvd0N1lAQItGgf/dql1Yrs65S3+5OljPUaYnE4oJh+6FBAm > TTD2Sq9xrhOUmT1fLMf4s0SicUEWtwGTMRWOUrrsExlr30I/OHKZGDwThqOYy/TI > NQ3rNcCpFl8qGbL3C/Maqd9awuZLMq08IMwQSQua5mBGTe5t7YP3kmQQ2WvRAjBj > 5VtjhH5pdpWaECbTuTl+5xyeyqVmthj9KU8C2/JEOSpm8Kj4pHQEdJ2PrBU7qDky > p3MypwLHxGzg/m6fjKyE6S0bY0ENmx7Qii4w8tJDR1jNMeisb1Fx63Zxk6M/FJRF > ZMdcjyt0dtIIiZCLC4K4sAd14zn/m17yZtg7JVFl+Rg+a9Bhnwxcww== > =Ktao > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
