On 2013-04-24 00:15, Tod Hansmann wrote:
> On 4/23/2013 9:32 PM, Jima wrote:
>> On 2013-04-23 19:18, Tod Hansmann wrote:
>> > The static IPs
>>> work as you expect. This is in contrast to their business fiber, which
>>> can be a bit wonky (you get a /30 that you don't pay for as a
>>> "management" subnet and your /29 or whatever is routed to your
>>> management IP. Odd, but it works great thus far.)
>> I prefer having a point-to-point /30 and having my assigned subnet
>> routed, myself. It lets me split my allocation up, abuse the
>> network/broadcast/router addresses (generally for DNAT/SNAT), filter the
>> subnet (without a transparent firewall), and add another allocation
>> without renumbering my existing equipment. It's normal SOP for
>> enterprise-y connections, and I enjoy having the same design at home. :-)
>>
> You don't need the /30 getting in the middle for most of that, though
> (if not all, I'm not very imaginative at this hour on what all you could
> mean with some of the terms). Plus, with ipv6 it will be a moot issue
> for both of us. That's my next hopeful project with this lovely connection.
You do need the /30 for a couple of those, actually. There are ways
around the others (like a transparent bridging firewall).
With IPv6, the point-to-point subnet is actually MORE important, not
less. Have you ever dealt with an on-link /48? It's clear evidence
that whoever architected the ISP's IPv6 deployment had little idea what
they were doing. The only way around it is rather unpleasant hacks --
not hypothetically speaking.
Jima
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
