No, this was covered recently. IIRC it has something to do with MTU and pfSense's handling of IPv6 fragments. -Adam
Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote: > >Related thread from nanog@ (hey, it's Friday). > >Btw, am I the only one with >Unable to communicate with www.pfsense.com. Please verify DNS and interface >configuration, and that pfSense has functional Internet connectivity. >? > >fetch -o - http://www.pfsense.org/packages/pkg_config.8.xml pulls it up fine, >but really slow/after a delay. > >----- Forwarded message from Joe Abley <[email protected]> ----- > >Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:54:48 -0400 >From: Joe Abley <[email protected]> >To: Brandon Ross <[email protected]> >Cc: Ryan McIntosh <[email protected]>, [email protected], >NANOG <[email protected]>, Darren Pilgrim <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size >X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) > > >On 2013-09-27, at 10:40, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Ryan McIntosh wrote: >> >>> It's a waste, even if we're "planning for the future", no one house >>> needs a /64 sitting on their lan.. or at least none I can sensibly >>> think of o_O. >> >> Okay, I'm just curious, what size do you (and other's of similar opinion) >> think the IPv6 space _should_ have been in order to allow us to not have to >> jump through conservation hoops ever again? 128 bits isn't enough, clearly, >> 256? 1k? 10k? > >Given the design decision to use the bottom 64 bits to identify an individual >host on a broadcast domain, the increase in address size isn't really 32 bits >to 128 bits -- if your average v4 subnet size for a vlan is a /27, say, then >it's more like an increase of 27 bits to 64 bits from the point of view of >global assignment. > >Alternatively, considering that it's normal to give a service provider at >least a /32, whereas the equivalent assignment in v4 might have been something >like a /19 (handwave, handwave), it's more like an increase of 13 bits to 32 >bits. > >Alternatively, considering that it's considered reasonable in some quarters to >give an end-user a /48 so that they can break out different subnets inside >their network whereas with IPv4 you'd give a customer a single address and >expect them to use NAT, then it's more like an increase of 31 bits to 48 bits. > >That's still a lower bound of 2^17 times as many available addresses, and >having enough addresses to satisfy a network 131,072 times as big as the >current v4 Internet does not seem like a horrible thing. But the oft-repeated >mantra that "there are enough addresses to individually number every grain of >sand on the world's beaches" doesn't describe reality very well. > >The IPv6 addressing plan didn't wind up meeting our requirements very well. >Film at 11. > > >Joe > >----- End forwarded message ----- >-- >Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org >______________________________________________________________ >ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org >AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5 >_______________________________________________ >List mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
