Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?
On 31/Mar/20 12:09, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > Note that there have been multiple requests for DHCPv6 to do this but > every attempt has been shot down. Yep - thankfully, we have an option. Operating two address assignment protocols is just silly. At my house, I don't even bother with DHCPv6 for DNS. I just use the IPv4 ones and let SLAAC assign IPv6 addresses to my devices. Just about done with the purist madness around this. Mark.
Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?
On 31/Mar/20 02:30, Roger Wiklund wrote: > > > When I read DHCPv6 vs SLAAC it often boils down to "control" but I > don't see the need to allocate a dynamic address if the autogenerated > are used. For client's you dont really have any inbound connections > unless it's a support case. > > What's your view on this? We only use DHCPv6 to assign IPv6 DNS addresses to devices. Otherwise, we rely on SLAAC. DHCPv6 took itself out of the running when it failed to provide the default gateway to its clients. Mark.
Re: T-Mobile DE IPv6-only APN
On 31/Jan/20 20:13, Dominik Bay wrote: > Hi, > > a few days ago T-Mobile DE officially launched their IPv6-only APN > internet.v6.telekom. > As I expected, this is working well across most of my devices. Awesome! Mark.
Re: Realistic number of hosts for a /64 subnet?
On 10/May/19 06:27, Doug Barton wrote: > It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did > the guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A > lot of that was IPv4 thinking regarding broadcast domains, but > generally speaking we kept to it for dual stacked networks, equating > an IPv4 /22 with an IPv6 /64. (This was commonly in office > environments where we used a subnet per floor to accommodate all of > the desktops, printers, phones, tablets, etc.) > > Is this still how people roll nowadays? Have switches and/or other > network gear advanced to the point where subnets larger than 1k hosts > are workable? In IPv4 or IPv6? I've done quite a bit of web searching, > and can't find anything newer than 2014 that has any kind of > intelligent discussion of this topic. Well, WLAN environments comes to mind. It is possible to find three or more thousand devices on a single (V)LAN, be it IPv4 or IPv6. Think large conferences, a stadium, a concert, e.t.c. Whether a single LAN can scale to the number of devices a /64 can maximally support... I don't think so, but I also don't know of anyone who has tried. Mark.
Re: Routing problem
On Saturday, November 29, 2014 09:38:39 PM Thomas Schäfer wrote: ping6 www.jool.mx PING www.jool.mx(2001:1250:ffe0:1::8) 56 data bytes From 2806:0:0:100::1 icmp_seq=1 Time exceeded: Hop limit From 2806:0:0:100::1 icmp_seq=2 Time exceeded: Hop limit From 2806:0:0:100::1 icmp_seq=3 Time exceeded: Hop limit From 2806:0:0:100::1 icmp_seq=4 Time exceeded: Hop limit ^C This time there are no difference between the ISPs I can use. I'm getting the same from Jo'burg. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google
On Tuesday, November 04, 2014 09:52:43 AM Tarko Tikan wrote: I will do technical writeup on the tech we are using after we get our PR out (which should be soon). That would be awesome. For consumer broadband deployments, it would be nice to know what technologies you and others have gone with for subscriber management, e.g., DHCP vs. PPPoE, ND/RA vs. DHCP IA_NA, e.t.c. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Some very nice IPv6 growth as measured by Google
On Tuesday, November 04, 2014 02:27:03 PM Bjørn Mork wrote: Erik has already provided some details on the CPE side. So I will try to add a bit of network details. Very nice, Bjorn. Thanks! Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Large IPv6 Multicast Domains
On Friday, June 20, 2014 02:10:55 PM Phil Mayers wrote: But IME transition from (*,g) to (s,g) and RP-tree flooding is where a lot of PIM-related issues occur, so I am totally on board with preferring SSM where possible. In NG-MVPN's, you have two options for transition; RTP-SPT which is typical (*,G) to (S,G) or SPT-only, which is (S,G). SPT-only breaks typical PIM behaviour, but it's very efficient. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: IPv6 Assignment for Server
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 09:46:14 AM Jens Link wrote: It's always good to have more than one IP per server, this way you run multiple Servers per IP (e.g. DNS or HTTP). This might get a little dirty but sometimes it necessary. For internal Server I would go with a /64 or maybe a /112. With a normal /48 or /32 assignment you should have enough networks. We normally assign /112's in static scenarios. Where we or customers needs SLAAC, we assign a /64. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
