Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:46:24PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > >> > There's a problem, however. My hoster won't (can't) give me >> > more than a /56 for each rack. I need at least two /56 >> > however (one IPv4 /32 for each IPv6 /64). >> >> I fail to see your hosters arguments against giving you e.g. a /48 if >> you really need it. Some of us still argue that that should be the > > The argument is basically: our setup doesn't support this, and we > won't change it to just accomodate you. Want another /56, rent > another rack. Unfortunately, switching to a different colo is not > feasible for me at the moment.
The "one size fits all" argument does make a lot of sense, but not the choice of /56 as default allocation. If they had done the sensible thing and provided every "site" (looks like that's a rack to them) with a /48 then they wouldn't have had this problem. They've essentially screwed themselves for no good reason. Let's just hope others will see this and learn: If you choose /56 as a default allocation then sooner or later you will have to support either multiple allocations per site or variable allocation sizes. If you choose /48, then you will get away with "one size fits all" and can save a lot of money on simplified provisioning and support. >> minimum allocation for end user sites. >> >> You do really need more than 256 subnets for each rack? > > I have 3x /24 at the moment, so that alone would require > 3x /56. I could dish out smaller units than /64 for each > end user vserver guest, but that would break too many assumption > so I need to figure out another way. I don't think that will be much of a problem, given that you probably have full control over the vserver network. Routing on longer prefixes than /64 work just fine, and there are many advocating using /126 or /127 for point to point links. > What options other than 6to4 > with a local relay router with native IPv6 do I have? Tunnels > (HE, SixXT) are just as deprecated, right? Static 6in4 tunnels are infinitely better than 6to4. AFAIK, you can get a /48 from both HE and SixXS without any questions. But it does seem a little backwards, given that your hosting provider does provide native IPv6 access. Personally, I would have gone for the native /56, splitting it up in as small allocations as necessary/possible. >> > It just occured to me that I can set up a local 6to4 relay >> > router http://wiki.debian.org/DebianIPv6 and produce private >> > IPv6 space for each public IPv4 /32. >> > >> > Are there problems associated with this, or can I go ahead >> > with it? >> >> No. Well, you can of course, but... IMHO, 6to4 should die now. Don't >> use it. Note that there's work going on in the IETF trying to move it >> to historic: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-00 > > Well, if my hoster won't give me enough space, and I can't get > PI space (my hoster won't let me speak BGP) I don't have too > many choices. No, I guess that's the reality we have to face many places at the moment. Stupid, but what can we do? I do find it extremely weird though, that they will provide you with 3 x /24 IPv4 allocations but only a single /56 IPv6 allocation. Completely insane. Bjørn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
