Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
On 2010.03.16 21:06, Steve Bertrand wrote: > On 2010.03.16 17:01, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> >> >> On 03/16/2010 07:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote: >>> Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up. >>> >>> General responses (some that didn't make it to the list): >>> - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it." >>> - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's a >>> bigger assignment >>> - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes you >>> feel better >>> - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs /52) is >>> better for some reason >>> >>> I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen >>> discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely >>> deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be? >> >> I filter at /48. > > Although I'm small and insignificant, I do too. > >> I would consider filtering on something shorter for >> assignments of /32 or shorter if there were obvious bad behaver's. We do >> advertise more specific /36s but we also have the covering /32. > > I think that it's going to filter down into a situation where people who > can allow a prefix might change their policy, given that the originator > is known. That doesn't mean that the next person in the chain will > accept it though. > > For me, I'll accept /48's until one of two things happen: > > - the RIRs decide that they won't be handing them out anymore > - that my routers can't handle the number of prefixes > > Other than that, I'd like to see /48 become a standard for acceptance. err... if the /48 was allocated/assigned from your local RIR from a block that was originally designed for such purposes. Otherwise, I don't blame anyone who is selective on filtering above /48 when the original alloc was /32 (or larger). Steve
Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
On 2010.03.16 17:01, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > > On 03/16/2010 07:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote: >> Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up. >> >> General responses (some that didn't make it to the list): >> - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it." >> - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's a >> bigger assignment >> - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes you >> feel better >> - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs /52) is >> better for some reason >> >> I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen >> discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely >> deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be? > > I filter at /48. Although I'm small and insignificant, I do too. > I would consider filtering on something shorter for > assignments of /32 or shorter if there were obvious bad behaver's. We do > advertise more specific /36s but we also have the covering /32. I think that it's going to filter down into a situation where people who can allow a prefix might change their policy, given that the originator is known. That doesn't mean that the next person in the chain will accept it though. For me, I'll accept /48's until one of two things happen: - the RIRs decide that they won't be handing them out anymore - that my routers can't handle the number of prefixes Other than that, I'd like to see /48 become a standard for acceptance. Steve
Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
On 03/16/2010 07:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote: > Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up. > > General responses (some that didn't make it to the list): > - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it." > - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's a > bigger assignment > - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes you > feel better > - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs /52) is > better for some reason > > I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen > discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely > deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be? I filter at /48. I would consider filtering on something shorter for assignments of /32 or shorter if there were obvious bad behaver's. We do advertise more specific /36s but we also have the covering /32. > Thanks, > > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Rick Ernst wrote: > >> >> A couple of different incantations searching the archive didn't enlighten >> me, and I find it hard to believe this hasn't been discussed. Apologies and >> a request for pointers if I'm rehashing an old question. >> >> As a small/regional ISP, we got our /32 assigned and it's time to start >> moving forward (customers are asking for it). New hardware, updated IOS, >> etc. are in the pipe. Discussions are beginning with our upstream providers >> for peering. Now, what do we do? >> >> A /48 seems to be the standard end-user/multi-homed customer allocation and >> is the minimum allocation size from ARIN. A /32 provides 65K /48s so, in >> theory, we could give each of our customers a /48 and still have room for >> growth. A /48 also appears to be generally accepted as the the longest >> prefix allowed through filters (although /49 through /54 are also >> discussed). Most customers, however, won't be multi-homed. >> >> Partly from an IPv4 scarcity perspective, and partly from general >> efficiency and thrift, it seems awfully silly to hand out /48s to somebody >> that may have a handful of servers or a couple of home machines, especially >> with special addressing like link-local if the hosts are not expected to be >> internet reachable (back-end servervs, etc). >> >> Based on the above, I'm looking to establish some initial policies to save >> grief in the future: >> - /52 allocations to end-users (residential, soho, etc.) >> - /48 allocations to those that request it >> - If you are going to multi-home, get your own space >> >> This is obviously a very broad brush and takes an insanely large addressing >> model and makes it even larger (assigning /52s instead of /48s) but, to me >> at least, it seems reasonable for a first-pass. >> >> For context/scope, we currently have the equivalent of a bit more than the >> equivalent of a /16 (IPv4) in use. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >
Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote: > Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up. > > General responses (some that didn't make it to the list): > - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it." > - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's a > bigger assignment > - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes you > feel better > - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs /52) is > better for some reason > Octet boundary, not really. Nibble boundary, yes. Both for DNS delegation convenience and for human factors issues. > I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen > discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely > deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be? > So far, mostly it's /48 with a few select providers trying to hold the line at /32. Owen
IPv6 filtering practices (Was: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations)
Rick Ernst wrote: [..] > I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen > discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely > deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be? There have been a lot of discussions on this before. (See also http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops) 1) IRR data, use whois.ripe.net to store also your non-RIPE, thus ARIN,APNIC etc details. This the best place to get your data. When a prefix is here, accept that size, clearly the ISP intends to distribute it that way. 2) Allocation size as given by the RIR(*), thus a /32 if the block is truly a /32 and a /48 when it is a /48. If you have PI that is PI, if you have PA it is Aggregated by you the provider, thus don't chop it up into little blocks. 3) Gert Doering's filter recommendations: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html Also note that it is your network, accept/reject what you want. Do remember the little problem that when you accept a /64 from some ISP, that that prefix has to leak through a lot of little crappy holes to actually get to you, it is a more specific, but the route might be really really bad to get there. As for the /48 vs /56 to end-user discussions, these prefixes are coming out of PA space and thus should not exist in the DFZ. It is Provider Aggregated, not PD (Provider Deaggregated) after all. Greets, Jeroen * = Unfortunately it seems that ARIN is giving 1 entity prefixes spread over multiple blocks, eg four distinct /32's; one can internally aggregate those of course. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up. General responses (some that didn't make it to the list): - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it." - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's a bigger assignment - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes you feel better - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs /52) is better for some reason I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" (widely deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be? Thanks, On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Rick Ernst wrote: > > A couple of different incantations searching the archive didn't enlighten > me, and I find it hard to believe this hasn't been discussed. Apologies and > a request for pointers if I'm rehashing an old question. > > As a small/regional ISP, we got our /32 assigned and it's time to start > moving forward (customers are asking for it). New hardware, updated IOS, > etc. are in the pipe. Discussions are beginning with our upstream providers > for peering. Now, what do we do? > > A /48 seems to be the standard end-user/multi-homed customer allocation and > is the minimum allocation size from ARIN. A /32 provides 65K /48s so, in > theory, we could give each of our customers a /48 and still have room for > growth. A /48 also appears to be generally accepted as the the longest > prefix allowed through filters (although /49 through /54 are also > discussed). Most customers, however, won't be multi-homed. > > Partly from an IPv4 scarcity perspective, and partly from general > efficiency and thrift, it seems awfully silly to hand out /48s to somebody > that may have a handful of servers or a couple of home machines, especially > with special addressing like link-local if the hosts are not expected to be > internet reachable (back-end servervs, etc). > > Based on the above, I'm looking to establish some initial policies to save > grief in the future: > - /52 allocations to end-users (residential, soho, etc.) > - /48 allocations to those that request it > - If you are going to multi-home, get your own space > > This is obviously a very broad brush and takes an insanely large addressing > model and makes it even larger (assigning /52s instead of /48s) but, to me > at least, it seems reasonable for a first-pass. > > For context/scope, we currently have the equivalent of a bit more than the > equivalent of a /16 (IPv4) in use. > > Thanks, > >
Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Rick Ernst wrote: A couple of different incantations searching the archive didn't enlighten me, and I find it hard to believe this hasn't been discussed. Apologies and a request for pointers if I'm rehashing an old question. Don't have the pointers handy, but, it has been discussed as well as the meta-discussion of the general lack of BCP and documentation available. One good source for some information is http://www.getipv6.info As a small/regional ISP, we got our /32 assigned and it's time to start moving forward (customers are asking for it). New hardware, updated IOS, etc. are in the pipe. Discussions are beginning with our upstream providers for peering. Now, what do we do? Glad to hear customers are asking for it. That's a good sign. I think the next step is to start planning your address utilization. Some ISPs are giving all customers a /48. Some are giving small (residential, SOHO, and small business) a /56 by default and a /48 on request. A /48 is given to each site of medium-to-large businesses, more with proper justification. A /48 seems to be the standard end-user/multi-homed customer allocation and is the minimum allocation size from ARIN. A /32 provides 65K /48s so, in theory, we could give each of our customers a /48 and still have room for growth. A /48 also appears to be generally accepted as the the longest prefix allowed through filters (although /49 through /54 are also discussed). Most customers, however, won't be multi-homed. Generally, that's pretty accurate. Over time, I suspect the proportion of multihomed customers will increase. Partly from an IPv4 scarcity perspective, and partly from general efficiency and thrift, it seems awfully silly to hand out /48s to somebody that may have a handful of servers or a couple of home machines, especially with special addressing like link-local if the hosts are not expected to be internet reachable (back-end servervs, etc). It isn't. Repeat after me... IPv6 addressing is vast and was designed to allow sparse allocations. It is not necessary to conserve every singe address. Based on the above, I'm looking to establish some initial policies to save grief in the future: - /52 allocations to end-users (residential, soho, etc.) /52 works, too, although most people who are doing less than /48 are going to /56, with /48 as the fallback if /56 is not enough. - /48 allocations to those that request it Good plan. - If you are going to multi-home, get your own space Not necessarily. There are still many multihoming scenarios that do not meet the ARIN criteria for provider-independent address assignment. As much as I would like to change the ARIN criteria, for now, the community seems to feel that there is concern about overflowing the capabilities of backbone routers if we did this. This is obviously a very broad brush and takes an insanely large addressing model and makes it even larger (assigning /52s instead of /48s) but, to me at least, it seems reasonable for a first-pass. ARIN will accept you assigning anything up to a /48 to any end user. Anything over a /48 requires a justification. For context/scope, we currently have the equivalent of a bit more than the equivalent of a /16 (IPv4) in use. Then your /32 may very likely be enough for you for IPv6. Something to consider, if you have multiple POPs or locations, you may want to enable aggregation of those locations on nibble boundaries. Doing so means that you could do 16 POPs with a /36 each, or, 256 POPs with a /40 each. Each of the 16 /36 POPs would support roughly 4,000 customers. If you go to /40s, then, you only get 200 customers per POP. Hope this helps, Owen
Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Rick Ernst wrote: A /48 seems to be the standard end-user/multi-homed customer allocation and is the minimum allocation size from ARIN. A /32 provides 65K /48s so, in theory, we could give each of our customers a /48 and still have room for growth. A /48 also appears to be generally accepted as the the longest prefix allowed through filters (although /49 through /54 are also discussed). Most customers, however, won't be multi-homed. https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six541 Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: t...@lava.net
IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
A couple of different incantations searching the archive didn't enlighten me, and I find it hard to believe this hasn't been discussed. Apologies and a request for pointers if I'm rehashing an old question. As a small/regional ISP, we got our /32 assigned and it's time to start moving forward (customers are asking for it). New hardware, updated IOS, etc. are in the pipe. Discussions are beginning with our upstream providers for peering. Now, what do we do? A /48 seems to be the standard end-user/multi-homed customer allocation and is the minimum allocation size from ARIN. A /32 provides 65K /48s so, in theory, we could give each of our customers a /48 and still have room for growth. A /48 also appears to be generally accepted as the the longest prefix allowed through filters (although /49 through /54 are also discussed). Most customers, however, won't be multi-homed. Partly from an IPv4 scarcity perspective, and partly from general efficiency and thrift, it seems awfully silly to hand out /48s to somebody that may have a handful of servers or a couple of home machines, especially with special addressing like link-local if the hosts are not expected to be internet reachable (back-end servervs, etc). Based on the above, I'm looking to establish some initial policies to save grief in the future: - /52 allocations to end-users (residential, soho, etc.) - /48 allocations to those that request it - If you are going to multi-home, get your own space This is obviously a very broad brush and takes an insanely large addressing model and makes it even larger (assigning /52s instead of /48s) but, to me at least, it seems reasonable for a first-pass. For context/scope, we currently have the equivalent of a bit more than the equivalent of a /16 (IPv4) in use. Thanks,
