On Sun, 23 Dec 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 dec 2007, at 21:23, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
IPv6 documents seem to assume
that because auto-discovery on a LAN uses a /64, you always have to
use a /64 global-scope subnet. I don't see any technical issues that
require this though.
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
There plenty of organisation who has a dedicated team/person for
network management (routers, switches etc.), while another
team/person for system management (dhcp, servers etc.). So
configuring DHCPv6 requires cooperation which takes time, but users
are complaining
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:24:32AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
First of all, there's RFC 3513:
For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.
Ahhh, thanks -
* Joe Greco:
Right now, we might say wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
hogwash! and in years to come, wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
thinking!?
Well, what's the likelihood of the only 256 subnets problem?
There's a tendency to move away from (simulated) shared media
Ross Vandegrift [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ahhh, thanks - that is the only thing I have ever seen that gives any
reason for the /64 prefix. Sadly, the document contains no
compelling technical reasons for it - looks like it's done just so
things are easy when generating interface IDs from
On 19 Dec 2007, at 21:31, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[...]
When an ISP is not going to provide /48's to endusers then RIPE NCC
should revoke the IPv6 prefix they received as they are not following
the reasons why they received the prefix for.
They received the prefix because they had a plan.
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Right now, we might say wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
hogwash! and in years to come, wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
thinking!?
Well, what's the likelihood of the only 256 subnets problem?
There's a tendency
Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 19 Dec 2007, at 21:31, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[...]
When an ISP is not going to provide /48's to endusers then RIPE NCC
should revoke the IPv6 prefix they received as they are not following
the reasons why they received the prefix for.
They received the prefix
-- On Sun, 12/23/07, Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL leased line customers
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sunday, December 23, 2007, 2:21 PM
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Right now, we
There is a huge detent at /48, but there's a certain amount of guidance
that can only be derived from operational experience. It's not clear to
me why /56 would be unacceptable, particularly if you're delegating them
to a device that already has a /64. Are one's customers attached via
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:54:34 -0500
Ross Vandegrift [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:24:32AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
First of all, there's RFC 3513:
For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
000, Interface IDs are required to
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:46:26 +0100
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joe Greco:
Right now, we might say wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
hogwash! and in years to come, wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
thinking!?
Well, what's the likelihood of the only 256
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Right now, we might say wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
hogwash! and in years to come, wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
thinking!?
Well, what's the likelihood of the only 256 subnets problem?
There's a
If operational simplicity of fixed length node addressing is a
technical reason, then I think it is a compelling one. If you've ever
done any reasonable amount of work with Novell's IPX (or other fixed
length node addressing layer 3 protocols (mainly all of them except
IPv4!)) you'll know
I think we got here when site-local went away - we've effectively
redefined link-local to mean site-local, while using globally unique
addressing.
site-local was replaced with ULA. Have you got your ULA yet? :-)
ULA gives you /48's.
6to4 gives you /48's.
Your
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:26:12 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If operational simplicity of fixed length node addressing is a
technical reason, then I think it is a compelling one. If you've ever
done any reasonable amount of work with Novell's IPX (or other fixed
length
There's a tendency to move away from (simulated) shared media networks.
One host per subnet might become the norm.
and, with multiple addresses per interface, the home user surely _might_
need a /32.
sigh
might does not make right
randy
I think Ethernet is also another example of the benefits of
spending/wasting address space on operational convenience - who needs
46/47 bits for unicast addressing on a single layer 2 network!? If I
recall correctly from bits and pieces I've read about early Ethernet,
the very
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:27:55 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Ethernet is also another example of the benefits of
spending/wasting address space on operational convenience - who needs
46/47 bits for unicast addressing on a single layer 2 network!? If I
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:58:44 +0900
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a tendency to move away from (simulated) shared media networks.
One host per subnet might become the norm.
and, with multiple addresses per interface, the home user surely _might_
need a /32.
What
MAC address allocations are paid for by the Ethernet chipset/card vendor.
They're not paid for by an ISP, or by any other Ethernet end-user, except
as a pass-through, and therefore it's considered a fixed cost. There are
no RIR fees, and there is no justification. You buy a gizmo
On Dec 23, 2007 8:44 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and trying to keep 50k machines updated with proper resolvers (in the
simplest example) is easier with RA than DHCP how?
do you really mean skip RA or all of autoconf?
I think what makes sense is to use the parts of ipv6 that
Joe Greco wrote:
There is a huge detent at /48, but there's a certain amount of guidance
that can only be derived from operational experience. It's not clear to
me why /56 would be unacceptable, particularly if you're delegating them
to a device that already has a /64. Are one's customers
23 matches
Mail list logo
