Re: IPv6 Stateless Configuration
You need all to be part of the same Ethernet network. So if this UTM can act as a bridge/switch you should be ok. Otherwise the RA broadcasts need to reach your device so it guesses the network and add it's Mac address to the network and make an ipv6 address. I would say RA is a bit like DHCP in your case in terms of network topology but beside that RA is simpler (no leases table). Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question On 15/10/2010, at 17:49, Rod James Bio rju...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, First time poster here. I would just like to ask what are the flags on router advertisement to enable a host to autoconfigure its IPv6 address. There is this device that I'm configuring that I cant get RA to work. I was able to work out the connectivity from the device to the IPv6 internet, but the problem is host behind this device is not getting its unique global ipv6 address. The device is a cyberoam UTM. Thanks! Rod Bio.
Re: IPv6 Stateless Configuration
That's my setup right now. The problem is the machine is not configuring its IPv6 address with RA already turned on. I'm guessing that the flag set on the UTM router advertisement messages is wrong. May I know the default flags use on a cisco router? Thanks. On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote: You need all to be part of the same Ethernet network. So if this UTM can act as a bridge/switch you should be ok. Otherwise the RA broadcasts need to reach your device so it guesses the network and add it's Mac address to the network and make an ipv6 address. I would say RA is a bit like DHCP in your case in terms of network topology but beside that RA is simpler (no leases table). Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question On 15/10/2010, at 17:49, Rod James Bio rju...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, First time poster here. I would just like to ask what are the flags on router advertisement to enable a host to autoconfigure its IPv6 address. There is this device that I'm configuring that I cant get RA to work. I was able to work out the connectivity from the device to the IPv6 internet, but the problem is host behind this device is not getting its unique global ipv6 address. The device is a cyberoam UTM. Thanks! Rod Bio.
Re: IPv6 Stateless Configuration
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Rod James Bio wrote: That's my setup right now. The problem is the machine is not configuring its IPv6 address with RA already turned on. I'm guessing that the flag set on the UTM router advertisement messages is wrong. May I know the default flags use on a cisco router? Thanks. The default is that M and O bits are off, ie hosts should do SLAAC and there is no DHCPv6 info to be had. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: IPv6 Stateless Configuration
I have seen layer 2 devices not forwarding IPv6 packets (while forwarding IPv4 packets)... I would put a packet capture, and see if I see the RA packets coming from the router. On a Cisco router, RA is enabled by default and does not require any setting. - Original Message - From: Rod James Bio rju...@gmail.com To: Franck Martin fra...@genius.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, 15 October, 2010 7:11:07 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Stateless Configuration That's my setup right now. The problem is the machine is not configuring its IPv6 address with RA already turned on. I'm guessing that the flag set on the UTM router advertisement messages is wrong. May I know the default flags use on a cisco router? Thanks. On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote: You need all to be part of the same Ethernet network. So if this UTM can act as a bridge/switch you should be ok. Otherwise the RA broadcasts need to reach your device so it guesses the network and add it's Mac address to the network and make an ipv6 address. I would say RA is a bit like DHCP in your case in terms of network topology but beside that RA is simpler (no leases table). Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question On 15/10/2010, at 17:49, Rod James Bio rju...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, First time poster here. I would just like to ask what are the flags on router advertisement to enable a host to autoconfigure its IPv6 address. There is this device that I'm configuring that I cant get RA to work. I was able to work out the connectivity from the device to the IPv6 internet, but the problem is host behind this device is not getting its unique global ipv6 address. The device is a cyberoam UTM. Thanks! Rod Bio.
Re: IPv6 Stateless Configuration
Pay attention to the special layer 2 multicast address for the RA packet. On 10/15/10 3:21 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote: I have seen layer 2 devices not forwarding IPv6 packets (while forwarding IPv4 packets)... I would put a packet capture, and see if I see the RA packets coming from the router. On a Cisco router, RA is enabled by default and does not require any setting. - Original Message - From: Rod James Bio rju...@gmail.com To: Franck Martin fra...@genius.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, 15 October, 2010 7:11:07 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Stateless Configuration That's my setup right now. The problem is the machine is not configuring its IPv6 address with RA already turned on. I'm guessing that the flag set on the UTM router advertisement messages is wrong. May I know the default flags use on a cisco router? Thanks. On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote: You need all to be part of the same Ethernet network. So if this UTM can act as a bridge/switch you should be ok. Otherwise the RA broadcasts need to reach your device so it guesses the network and add it's Mac address to the network and make an ipv6 address. I would say RA is a bit like DHCP in your case in terms of network topology but beside that RA is simpler (no leases table). Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question On 15/10/2010, at 17:49, Rod James Bio rju...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, First time poster here. I would just like to ask what are the flags on router advertisement to enable a host to autoconfigure its IPv6 address. There is this device that I'm configuring that I cant get RA to work. I was able to work out the connectivity from the device to the IPv6 internet, but the problem is host behind this device is not getting its unique global ipv6 address. The device is a cyberoam UTM. Thanks! Rod Bio.
Re: IPv6 Stateless Configuration
Got it now. The preferredlifetime should be less than the value of the validlifetime option. Thanks BTW! :D On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.sewrote: On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Rod James Bio wrote: That's my setup right now. The problem is the machine is not configuring its IPv6 address with RA already turned on. I'm guessing that the flag set on the UTM router advertisement messages is wrong. May I know the default flags use on a cisco router? Thanks. The default is that M and O bits are off, ie hosts should do SLAAC and there is no DHCPv6 info to be had. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: MsgSent statistics question
http://hen.cs.ucl.ac.uk/library/hardware/routers/procket/20fcs/routing_protocols/bgp.verify19.html http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/internet/ip/routing/bgp/operation/finite_state_model.shtml http://www.cymru.com/Documents/barry2.pdf I would check the latest version of the RFC and also the IOS/BGP version you are running.. From: Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 12:12:10 AM Subject: MsgSent statistics question I am trying to troubleshoot an odd v6 peering connection issue. Does anyone know at what point is MsgSent in BGP summary or neighbor summary calculated? Does the MsgSent include initial TCP connections before establishment? Thanks, Zaid
Weekly Routing Table Report
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith p...@cisco.com. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 16 Oct, 2010 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 333673 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 153173 Deaggregation factor: 2.18 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 163976 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 34973 Prefixes per ASN: 9.54 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 30332 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 14721 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4641 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:102 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.6 Max AS path length visible: 24 Max AS path prepend of ASN (41664) 21 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 334 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 124 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:819 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:1161 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:216 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2280874400 Equivalent to 135 /8s, 243 /16s and 97 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 61.5 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 65.7 Percentage of available address space allocated: 93.7 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 85.3 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 137157 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:81624 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 27931 APNIC Deaggregation factor:2.92 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 78535 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:34462 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4204 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 18.68 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1175 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:644 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:3.7 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 551962912 Equivalent to 32 /8s, 230 /16s and 73 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 78.3 APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079 55296-56319, 131072-132095 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:136292 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:70287 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.94 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 108891 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 43464 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:13949 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 7.81 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:5337 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:1381 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.4 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible:
Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. Zaid
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
On 2010-10-15 21:26, Zaid Ali wrote: SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. You mean to say that a /126 is 'small' actually as it is only 2^(128-126) = 2^2 = 4 IP addresses while a /64 is.. For this discussion, please go through the archives. In short: Personal preference of operators involved. Greets, Jeroen
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
http://www.google.com/search?q=nanog+126+64 would be a good place to start... (And I'm guessing you mean that /64 is awfully large, not /126) Scott. On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote: SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. Zaid
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
On 15/10/2010 20:26, Zaid Ali wrote: SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. There are 4 general choices of netmask for ipv6 point to point interface numbering schemes: /64: the default ipv4 subnet. many people feel that this is a waste of addressing space. others feel that there is so much ipv6 address space out there that it's simpler to keep all interfaces on /64. /112: /112 is 16-bit aligned, which means that it's easy to read because 16 bits implies that the last 4 octets are link-specific. Also, your entire PoP point-to-point addressing scheme can be held within a single /64, which means good address conservation /126: this is the same as we use in ipv4: it's less easy to read, as the link-specific digits are not octet-aligned. Your entire PoP point-to-point addressing scheme can be held within a single /64, which means good address conservation /127: this is used on POS links where there is no link-layer address resolution protocol available (like ARP/ND) and consequently you can end up with unknown traffic looping between each side if you're not careful. None of these is the right or the wrong approach, unless you're using POS/STM. Otherwise all of them have their merits and demerits. Nick
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
Bahh had my head turned around and brain fried on a Friday. I was more curious about /64 vs /126 from management perspective. Thanks everyone for answering offline as well, I got my questions answered. Zaid On 10/15/10 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote: SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. Zaid
BGP Update Report
BGP Update Report Interval: 07-Oct-10 -to- 14-Oct-10 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS731526671 2.8% 398.1 -- COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP 2 - AS947625085 2.6%8361.7 -- INTRAPOWER-AS-AP IntraPower Pty. Ltd. 3 - AS32528 16777 1.8%8388.5 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs 4 - AS815116633 1.8% 8.0 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V. 5 - AS580015094 1.6% 74.0 -- DNIC-ASBLK-05800-06055 - DoD Network Information Center 6 - AS553614977 1.6% 220.2 -- Internet-Egypt 7 - AS33363 13794 1.4% 160.4 -- BHN-TAMPA - BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC 8 - AS755213058 1.4% 42.3 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel Corporation 9 - AS346413011 1.4% 289.1 -- ASC-NET - Alabama Supercomputer Network 10 - AS35931 12719 1.3%4239.7 -- ARCHIPELAGO - ARCHIPELAGO HOLDINGS INC 11 - AS8452 8376 0.9% 9.4 -- TE-AS TE-AS 12 - AS6517 7978 0.8% 57.4 -- RELIANCEGLOBALCOM - Reliance Globalcom Services, Inc 13 - AS3816 7655 0.8% 29.7 -- COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP 14 - AS144207590 0.8% 14.0 -- CORPORACION NACIONAL DE TELECOMUNICACIONES - CNT EP 15 - AS145226366 0.7% 33.9 -- Satnet 16 - AS210176326 0.7% 632.6 -- VSI-AS VSI AS 17 - AS178195835 0.6% 114.4 -- ASN-EQUINIX-AP Equinix Asia Pacific 18 - AS190295651 0.6% 5.0 -- NEWEDGENETS - New Edge Networks 19 - AS9829 5493 0.6% 18.0 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone 20 - AS123325295 0.6% 86.8 -- PRIMORYE-AS Open Joint Stock Company Far East Telecommunications Company TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS32528 16777 1.8%8388.5 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs 2 - AS947625085 2.6%8361.7 -- INTRAPOWER-AS-AP IntraPower Pty. Ltd. 3 - AS227534662 0.5%4662.0 -- REDHAT-STUTTGART REDHAT Stuttgart 4 - AS35931 12719 1.3%4239.7 -- ARCHIPELAGO - ARCHIPELAGO HOLDINGS INC 5 - AS17904 866 0.1% 866.0 -- SLTASUL-LK Sri Lankan Airlines 6 - AS210176326 0.7% 632.6 -- VSI-AS VSI AS 7 - AS24035 593 0.1% 593.0 -- MOFA-AS-VN Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam - MOFA 8 - AS11613 539 0.1% 539.0 -- U-SAVE - U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc. 9 - AS43058 473 0.1% 473.0 -- SKLEPY-KOMFORT-ASN Sklepy Komfort S.A. 10 - AS27027 432 0.1% 432.0 -- ANBELL ASN-ANBELL 11 - AS9556 1645 0.2% 411.2 -- ADAM-AS-AP Adam Internet Pty Ltd 12 - AS731526671 2.8% 398.1 -- COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP 13 - AS4862 1982 0.2% 396.4 -- EQUANT-ASIA Equant AS for Asian Region covering Japan 14 - AS55311 382 0.0% 382.0 -- LIENVIETBANK-AS-VN LienViet Joint Stock Commercial Bank 15 - AS281752163 0.2% 360.5 -- 16 - AS181631420 0.1% 355.0 -- JINJU18163-AS-KR jinju national university 17 - AS11868 342 0.0% 342.0 -- CRUZAZUL-NET - La Cruz Azul de Puerto Rico, Inc. 18 - AS104451684 0.2% 336.8 -- HTG - Huntleigh Telcom 19 - AS16416 336 0.0% 336.0 -- MYCOMAX 20 - AS4033 333 0.0% 333.0 -- TACASN - 754th Electronic Systems Group TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 203.1.14.0/24 13771 1.3% AS9476 -- INTRAPOWER-AS-AP IntraPower Pty. Ltd. 2 - 203.1.13.0/24 11313 1.1% AS9476 -- INTRAPOWER-AS-AP IntraPower Pty. Ltd. 3 - 130.36.34.0/24 8389 0.8% AS32528 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs 4 - 130.36.35.0/24 8388 0.8% AS32528 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs 5 - 63.211.68.0/22 8103 0.8% AS35931 -- ARCHIPELAGO - ARCHIPELAGO HOLDINGS INC 6 - 76.74.88.0/23 7381 0.7% AS6517 -- RELIANCEGLOBALCOM - Reliance Globalcom Services, Inc 7 - 129.66.128.0/176457 0.6% AS3464 -- ASC-NET - Alabama Supercomputer Network 8 - 129.66.0.0/17 6445 0.6% AS3464 -- ASC-NET - Alabama Supercomputer Network 9 - 72.31.122.0/24 6385 0.6% AS33363 -- BHN-TAMPA - BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC 10 - 72.31.98.0/24 6326 0.6% AS33363 -- BHN-TAMPA - BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC 11 - 201.134.18.0/245901 0.6% AS8151 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V. 12 - 190.65.228.0/225757 0.6% AS3816 -- COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP 13 - 66.187.234.0/244662 0.5% AS22753 -- REDHAT-STUTTGART REDHAT Stuttgart 14 - 198.140.43.0/244606 0.4% AS35931 -- ARCHIPELAGO - ARCHIPELAGO HOLDINGS INC 15 - 95.32.192.0/18 3254 0.3% AS21017 -- VSI-AS VSI AS 16 - 95.32.128.0/18 3056 0.3% AS21017 -- VSI-AS VSI AS 17 -
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Oct 15 21:11:45 2010 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
08-10-10338202 209571
09-10-10338249 209643
10-10-10338190 209887
11-10-10338445 210633
12-10-10338652 210524
13-10-10338465 209416
14-10-10338701 209568
15-10-10338841 210541
AS Summary
35645 Number of ASes in routing system
15190 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
4488 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS4323 : TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc.
96837888 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 15Oct10 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 338934 210402 12853237.9% All ASes
AS6389 3770 283 348792.5% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.
AS4323 4488 1979 250955.9% TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
inc.
AS19262 1777 279 149884.3% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online
LLC
AS22773 1205 66 113994.5% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
Cox Communications Inc.
AS4755 1373 283 109079.4% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly VSNL
is Leading ISP
AS17488 1364 324 104076.2% HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over
Cable Internet
AS4766 1872 866 100653.7% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS6478 1384 385 99972.2% ATT-INTERNET3 - ATT Services,
Inc.
AS5668 1057 94 96391.1% AS-5668 - CenturyTel Internet
Holdings, Inc.
AS18566 1088 193 89582.3% COVAD - Covad Communications
Co.
AS10620 1332 469 86364.8% Telmex Colombia S.A.
AS1785 1798 1015 78343.5% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.
AS7545 1421 707 71450.2% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
Pty Ltd
AS7303 831 119 71285.7% Telecom Argentina S.A.
AS4808 977 318 65967.5% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network
AS33363 1393 737 65647.1% BHN-TAMPA - BRIGHT HOUSE
NETWORKS, LLC
AS8151 1339 692 64748.3% Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS18101 888 249 63972.0% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
Reliance Communications
Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI
AS8452 984 374 61062.0% TE-AS TE-AS
AS28573 1182 634 54846.4% NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
AS11492 1235 688 54744.3% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.
AS7552 642 102 54084.1% VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel
Corporation
AS4780 709 184 52574.0% SEEDNET Digital United Inc.
AS17676 607 83 52486.3% GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.
AS7018 1463 940 52335.7% ATT-INTERNET4 - ATT Services,
Inc.
AS24560 1020 507 51350.3% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
Services
AS9443 575 75 50087.0% INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus
Telecommunications
AS7011 1156 668 48842.2% FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS -
Frontier Communications of
America, Inc.
AS22047 559 82 47785.3% VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A.
AS4804 665 212 453
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
Hi, On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700 Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote: SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. If you're not going to follow the IPv6 Addressing Architecture, which says /64s for everything, then the prefix length decision is pretty much arbitrary - there is nothing that special about /112s, /126s, /127s or /128s (or /120s or /80s) - they all break something in the existing IPv6 RFCs so once you've passed that threshold then you're really only choosing your poison. If you're going to go down that latter path, I'd suggest reserving a /64 for each link, and then using a longer prefix length out of that /64 when you configure the addressing, to make it easier if you decided to change back to /64s at a later time. Regards, Mark.
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
but then, can't we use ip unumbered on p2p links on cisco? - Original Message - From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org To: Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, 16 October, 2010 10:21:03 AM Subject: Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Hi, On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700 Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote: SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. If you're not going to follow the IPv6 Addressing Architecture, which says /64s for everything, then the prefix length decision is pretty much arbitrary - there is nothing that special about /112s, /126s, /127s or /128s (or /120s or /80s) - they all break something in the existing IPv6 RFCs so once you've passed that threshold then you're really only choosing your poison. If you're going to go down that latter path, I'd suggest reserving a /64 for each link, and then using a longer prefix length out of that /64 when you configure the addressing, to make it easier if you decided to change back to /64s at a later time. Regards, Mark.
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:51:03 +1030 From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org Hi, On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700 Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote: SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64. If you're not going to follow the IPv6 Addressing Architecture, which says /64s for everything, then the prefix length decision is pretty much arbitrary - there is nothing that special about /112s, /126s, /127s or /128s (or /120s or /80s) - they all break something in the existing IPv6 RFCs so once you've passed that threshold then you're really only choosing your poison. If you're going to go down that latter path, I'd suggest reserving a /64 for each link, and then using a longer prefix length out of that /64 when you configure the addressing, to make it easier if you decided to change back to /64s at a later time. If you listen to the NANOG debate on IPv6 on P2P links, you will discover that the participants (Igor of Yahoo and Rob Seastrom of Affilias) agreed that the proper way to do this was to allocate a /64 for the link but to configure it as a /127. This was to avoid ping-pong DOS attacks. I believe that the session has already been cited, but see Igor's presentation at: http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Tuesday/Gashinsky_LinkNumb_N48.pdf -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Media Sentry Contact
Does anyone have a working and responsive contact for the Media Sentry team that send copyright notices? I've been trying to contact them for about 6 months regarding an operational issue using all the contact information in their emails, but they clearly don't want any assistance because they have never responded to my emails. Kind Regards, David Hooton Managing Director Platform Networks www.platformnetworks.net
12 years ago today...
On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html
Re: 12 years ago today...
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Rodney Joffe rjo...@centergate.com wrote: On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html Amen. Long Live Jon Postel !!
Re: 12 years ago today...
On 10/15/10 8:38 PM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Rodney Joffe rjo...@centergate.com wrote: On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html Amen. Long Live Jon Postel !! And you can sometimes hear his comments http://www.facebook.com/jon.postel :)
