Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On 10/10/14, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: * Baldur Norddahl Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Some people think the benefit is worth the hassle. Why do you need those host routes? network management, logging, troubleshooting.. you need at least one loopback with a global address. Most IPv6 IGPs work just fine without global addresses or host routes. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-11 Look at the discussion of the draft - there seemed to me a clear consensus that using only link local addressing was a Bad Idea. I thought the caveats section made the draft worth publishing, but this bit was left out: And while the caveats hint at it, there's also an operational complexity burden that isn't called out - the ping and NMS/discovery limitations also apply to human operators troubleshooting faults and attempting to understand a deployed topology. LLDP and NDP add a layer of indirection in identifying what devices should be adjacent to a given interface, and only work when there is operational state available and links are up (whereas GUAs on interconnected devices can be compared by configuration alone, telling you what's supposed to be there). Erik Muller so the draft isn't as clear as I'd hoped regarding the caveats :( Best Regards, Lee
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 October 2014 23:18, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the infrastructure. Your colleagues are wrong. Again, see RFC6752. Yes, for using private IP addressing RFC 6752 applies and it is why we are not doing it. But you seem to completely fail to understand that RFC 6752 does not apply to the proposed solution. NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered interfaces. Traceroute works. ICMP works. There are no private IP addresses that gets filtered. I am wondering if all the nay sayers would not agree that is it better to have a single public loopback address shared between all my interfaces, than to go with private addressing completely? This is a false dichotomy. Because frankly, that is the alternative. It isn't the only alternative. The *optimal* alternative is to use publicly-routable link addresses, and then protect your infrastructure using iACLs, GTSM, CoPP, et. al. I will as soon as you send me the check to buy addresses for all my links. I got a few. But it appears you do not realize that we ARE using public IPs for our infrastructure. And we ARE using ACLs for protecting it. We are not using addresses for LINKS, neither public nor private. And it is not for security but to conserve expensive address space. Addresses are not expensive. You can get up to a /40 from ARIN for $500 one-tim and $100/year. Are you really trying to convince me that you have ore than 16.7 million links? (and that’s assuming you assign a /64 per link). I’m sorry, but this argument utterly fails under any form of analysis. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I’m sorry, but this argument utterly fails under any form of analysis. I think he's talking about IPv4 - and saying that since he apparently doesn't have the budget for enough IPv4 subnets to address his point-to-point links, he's inclined to repeat this suboptimal practice on the IPv6 side in the name of 'consistency'. But he knows best, and we oughtn't to try and dissuade him any further, as that just upsets him. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On (2014-10-09 15:25 +1100), Mark Andrews wrote: Hi, Because /64 only allows for a single subnet running SLAAC with currently defined specifications. I fully agree that larger than 64 must be allocation, in mobile internet, residental DSL, everywhere. I don't think it will happen, but I think it should and I'm happy to say that I was able to impact the national regulatory authority to include this in their recommendation for how IPv6 should be provided. Having routable network is only benefit of IPv6 over IPv4, and if we just give customers connected /64 network, without routing /56 there, then customers will need NAT. However, technically SLAAC is happy with arbitrarily small network, and some kit support this (like Cisco). You're going to have to do DAD anyhow, because uniqueness is not guaranteed. -- ++ytti
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:48 PM, James R Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Hi Erik, You're asking the right question and you understand the divisible-by-four rule for prefix delegation, which is good. The answer I recommend is: 1. Nothing smaller than /56 unless you know enough about the situation to be sure /56 is unnecessary. In particular, never provide a /64 to a customer... delegate nothing between /61 and /123, ever. You'll just be making mess that you have to clean up later when it turns out they needed 3 LANs after all. 2. Suggest /56 for residential and /48 for business customers as default, didn't ask for something else sizes. 3. /48 for anyone who makes the effort to ask, including residential customers. 99% won't ask and won't care any time in the foreseeable future. 4. Referral to ARIN for anyone who requests more than a /48. If they have a good reason for needing more than 65,000 LANs that reason is likely good enough to justify a direct ARIN assignment. If they don't have a good reason, the experience will teach them that without needing to get them mad at you. Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. 4. Keeping in mind 4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be excluded from the global routing table 4.1a Prefix cutouts of any size (including /48) from inside your /32 or larger block may be excluded from the global routing table. Folks who are multihomed and thus need to advertise their own block with BGP should be referred to ARIN for a direct assignment. Folks who aren't multihomed, well, until given evidence otherwise I claim there are no single-homed entities who will use 65,000 LANs, let alone more. 4.2 Your customers want working Internet connections 4.3 You want income at a minimum of ongoing expense make a sensible business decision. IPv6 is large but not infinite. No need to be conservative, but profligate consumption is equally without merit. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Stop cringing and give them /48s. It’s really not going to harm anything. Really. Look at the math. That scale of waste is a very very pale glimmer compared to the LAN side of things where you have 18,000,000,000,000,000,000 (and then some) addresses left over after you put a few hundred thousand hosts on the segment. Also, claiming that 90% will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets simply displays a complete lack of imagination. Household networks will continue to gain sophistication and with automated topologies developed through more advanced applications of DHCP-PD, you will, in fact, start seeing things like WLAN+GuestWLAN+LAN on separate segments, entertainment systems which generate their own segment(s), appliance networks which have separate routed segments, etc. Unfortunately, most of these future applications don’t stand a chance while we’re still mired in IPv4 and IPv4-think about how to allocate addresses. Owen On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
I’ll go a step further… If you give a residential customer the /48 that they should be getting, then as DHCP-PD and automatic topologies become more widespread, you have enabled flexibility in the breadth and depth of the bit patterns used to facilitate such hierarchies in the home network environment. If you limit them to 8 bits of subnetting, you are very limited in the constructs (1x8, 2x4, 4x2, or 8x1) which can be achieved. Further, there’s really no advantage to keeping so much extra IPv6 address space on the shelves long past the expiration of the protocol’s useful life. I guarantee you that unless we start doing really stupid things (like using IPv6 /48s as serial numbers for cars), giving /48s to residential customers will not exhaust the current /3 (1/8th of the total IPv6 space) before we hit some other limitation of the protocol. Owen On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Like I said, this was my understanding I am glad that it is being pointed out to be in-correct I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any reason Why NOT So, let me ask the question in a different manner... What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:47:01 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Why would you only allocate a residential customer a single /64? That's totally short sighted in my view. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practice discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 9:18:16 PM Subject: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:54 PM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: On (2014-10-09 15:25 +1100), Mark Andrews wrote: Hi, Because /64 only allows for a single subnet running SLAAC with currently defined specifications. I fully agree that larger than 64 must be allocation, in mobile internet, residental DSL, everywhere. I don't think it will happen, but I think it should and I'm happy to say that I was able to impact the national regulatory authority to include this in their recommendation for how IPv6 should be provided. Sadly there are pieces of 3GPP that limit LTE to single /64 already. These should, IMHO, be fixed. Having routable network is only benefit of IPv6 over IPv4, and if we just give customers connected /64 network, without routing /56 there, then customers will need NAT. It’s not the only benefit, it is one of many benefits. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 8, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote: Mark, Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. The excerpt Royce quoted from RFC6177 (requoted below) seems to back away from /48s by default to all resi users and land in a somewhat vague more than a /64 please, but we're not specifically recommending /48s across the board for residential before specifically mentioning /56 assignments. Yes, but if you review the record as 6177 was rammed through against somewhat vociferous objection to this part, you should realize that that part really didn’t achieve near the level of consensus that should have been required for it to be accepted. The general push in the community is towards /48 across the board. Any comments on why the RFC backs away from that? Is this just throwing a bone to the masses complaining about waste”? It was a political maneuver to appease the IPv4 thinkers that were prevalent in that part of the IETF at the time. (Just my opinion). Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On (2014-10-09 00:37 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote: Sadly there are pieces of 3GPP that limit LTE to single /64 already. These should, IMHO, be fixed. According to the national IPv6 residential recommendation 3GPP release 10 offers prefix delegation, which will facilitate this. Having routable network is only benefit of IPv6 over IPv4, and if we just give customers connected /64 network, without routing /56 there, then customers will need NAT. It’s not the only benefit, it is one of many benefits. Yeah mailing list volume is the other one. -- ++ytti
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 04:59 +, Peter Rocca wrote: To paraphrase a post on this list a while ago (my apologies for lack of reference). There are two kinds of waste: - the first kind of waste is providing 'too many' subnets for someone; - the second kind of waste is leaving the space unallocated forever. Good point. But I maintain that too many is exactly the right number, and not a waste at all :-) There are only three amounts of any scarce resource - too little, enough, and I don't know. In an ideal world nobody knows how much disk space, RAM, bandwidth or address space they have - they never run into their limits. IPv6 has ticked the box for address space - why are so many people intent on unticking it? In my courses on IPv6, wasted address space *always* comes up. I define waste as spending some finite resource for no benefit. With IPv6, the resource is extremely abundant, though admittedly not infinite. And the benefits from handing out big allocations are numerous: - never resize an allocation - never have to add an allocation - never have to take a phone call asking to resize an allocation - all prefixes are the same length - easier, faster, simpler to allocate, manage, filter, firewall, document... ... and that's just to start with. It all translates into cheaper, easier, less error-prone. And the benefits are reaped by both parties - the provider and the customer. There's a case to be made, also, that simpler is more secure, because simpler and more homogeneous networks are easier to understand, easier to manage, and this suffer less from human error and so on. This is what you are buying with short prefixes. There are clear benefits, so it's not waste. There's another point though, that I may have made before in this forum, and that is that whether you have 2, 200 or 2000 nodes in a /64, you are still using, to many decimal places, zero percent of the available address space. The number of live nodes is barely even statistical noise. So worrying about *addresses* in IPv6 is completely pointless. Thinking about subnets, on the other hand, does make sense - and 256 subnets (in a /56) is not very many. It's trivially easy to dream up an entirely plausible scenario where an ordinary household chews through that many subnets before breakfast. Give them a /48! Give everyone a /48. There is *enough address space* for goodness sake. All you are doing by saving space is putting a completely unnecessary brake on the future - yours and theirs. Give them more subnets, literally, than they or you know what to do with. So many that we can't even conceive of anyone using that many. That way subnets, like addresses, cease to be a limitation. How many subnets do you have? I don't know - does it matter? That's where you want to be. Don't let your limited vision limit other people. Even if YOU can't see the point, rest assured that some bright young thing just leaving high school will dream up something world-changingly wonderful that needs ten thousand subnets per household... Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882 Old fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Owen DeLong wrote: Sadly there are pieces of 3GPP that limit LTE to single /64 already. These should, IMHO, be fixed. DHCPv6-PD is already standardized in 3GPP several years ago, it just hasn't made it widely into equipment out there yet. That's why current best way to do this is to share the /64 between the PDP context and the LAN. This of course is quite limiting, but it wouldn't surprise me if we'll see differentiation here between mobile Internet and regular handset Internet subscriptions unfortunately. I fully support giving all devices whatever they request, stop differentiating between different kinds of devices, and just charge where the costs are, ie on packets moved. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
We assign a /128 by DHCPv6 (*). And then we assign a /48 by DHCPv6-PD prefix delegation. To everyone no matter what class of customer they are. You are thinking about it wrong. It is not about what the customer need but about what you need. Do you really have a need to use more than 48 bits for your routing? Do we need more than 48 bits for the global routing table? Do we need more than 48 bits to conserve enough address space for any conceivable future setting? The answer is no to all of these, so why are you trying to decide what a user could be doing with the remaining address bits? What if IPv6 had been designed with a variable address length, such that you could do 2048 bits addresses if you wanted. What prefix length would you choose if that was the case? Where do you stop? Would you really be giving out /1024 because otherwise it would be wasteful? No, I believe you would be giving out /48s. (*) using /128 on the subscriber link solves a security issue and makes deployments on asymmetric links easier. Again we are doing it because of operational issues and not because we are trying to conserve address space. Regrads, Baldur On 9 October 2014 03:18, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On 9 October 2014 05:40, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message 482678376.131852.1412829159356.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. My moment of clarity came when I got a /56 routed to my house and started using it. I started off thinking that 256 was a huge number of subnets, more than I could ever need. What I realised was that (sticking to best practices) a /56 only allows you one further level of delegation, and I found that to be more of a barrier than the number of subnets. In the same way that you stop thinking /64 is a lot of addresses and start thinking /64 is a network I find it helps to stop thinking /48 is 65536 subnets and start thinking /48 allows you up to 4 levels of delegation. Dan
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 09:46 +0100, Daniel Ankers wrote: What I realised was that (sticking to best practices) You mean subnet only on 4-bit boundaries? Nibble boundaries are nice for human readability, but if there is a good technical reason for other boundaries, you shouldn't shy away from them. Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882 Old fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing all that dark space, esp. when virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: Give them a /48. This is IPv6 not IPv4. Take the IPv4 glasses off and put on the IPv6 glasses. Stop constraining your customers because you feel that it is a waste. It is not a waste It will also reduce the number of exceptions you need to process and make over all administration easier. As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in the future not just traditional routers. It will have descrete internal components which communicate using IPv6 and those components need to talk to each other and the world. In a IPv4 world they would be NAT'd. In a IPv6 world the router requests a prefix. Mark In message 495d0934da46854a9ca758393724d5906da...@ni-mail02.nii.ads, Erik Sun dberg writes: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure o= ut our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone givi= ng for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of ha= nding a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cring= e at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have m= ore than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more I= Pv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files = or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential informa= tion that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or = a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are h= ereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of = the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY P= ROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify th= e sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the origi= nal transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manne= r. Thank you. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
In message 1aa6f1a9-d63b-4066-903d-0e8690c7c...@isi.edu, manning bill writes: yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing = all that dark space, esp. when virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 and if everyone hands out /48's you just filter /48's. With a mix of /56 and /48 you need to filter at the /56 level. Given enterpises are getting /48's it will be simpler overall for everyone to get /48's. On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: =20 Give them a /48. This is IPv6 not IPv4. Take the IPv4 glasses off and put on the IPv6 glasses. Stop constraining your customers because you feel that it is a waste. It is not a waste It will also reduce the number of exceptions you need to process and make over all administration easier. =20 As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in the future not just traditional routers. It will have descrete internal components which communicate using IPv6 and those components need to talk to each other and the world. In a IPv4 world they would be NAT'd. In a IPv6 world the router requests a prefix. =20 Mark =20 In message 495d0934da46854a9ca758393724d5906da...@ni-mail02.nii.ads, = Erik Sun dberg writes: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to = figure o=3D ut our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is = everyone givi=3D ng for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea = of ha=3D nding a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me = cring=3D e at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never = have m=3D ore than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for = more I=3D Pv6 Space. =20 /64 /60 /56 /48 =20 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? =20 Thanks =20 Erik =20 =20 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, = files =3D or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential = informa=3D tion that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended = recipient, or =3D a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you = are h=3D ereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of = any of =3D the information contained in or attached to this transmission is = STRICTLY P=3D ROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please = notify th=3D e sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the = origi=3D nal transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any = manne=3D r. Thank you. --=20 Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. On 10/09/14 12:29, Mark Andrews wrote: In message 1aa6f1a9-d63b-4066-903d-0e8690c7c...@isi.edu, manning bill writes: yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing = all that dark space, esp. when virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 and if everyone hands out /48's you just filter /48's. With a mix of /56 and /48 you need to filter at the /56 level. Given enterpises are getting /48's it will be simpler overall for everyone to get /48's. On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: =20 Give them a /48. This is IPv6 not IPv4. Take the IPv4 glasses off and put on the IPv6 glasses. Stop constraining your customers because you feel that it is a waste. It is not a waste It will also reduce the number of exceptions you need to process and make over all administration easier. =20 As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in the future not just traditional routers. It will have descrete internal components which communicate using IPv6 and those components need to talk to each other and the world. In a IPv4 world they would be NAT'd. In a IPv6 world the router requests a prefix. =20 Mark =20 In message 495d0934da46854a9ca758393724d5906da...@ni-mail02.nii.ads, = Erik Sun dberg writes: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to = figure o=3D ut our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is = everyone givi=3D ng for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea = of ha=3D nding a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me = cring=3D e at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never = have m=3D ore than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for = more I=3D Pv6 Space. =20 /64 /60 /56 /48 =20 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? =20 Thanks =20 Erik =20 =20 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, = files =3D or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential = informa=3D tion that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended = recipient, or =3D a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you = are h=3D ereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of = any of =3D the information contained in or attached to this transmission is = STRICTLY P=3D ROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please = notify th=3D e sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the = origi=3D nal transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any = manne=3D r. Thank you. --=20 Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: So, let me ask the question in a different manner... What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). The wisdom/reasoning behind larger allocations is to control the cost of doing business. Things change. Customer requirements change. Arrange your network so that customers can do what they need without configuration costs on your part. Follow the money. Then keep it. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
In message 54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com, Paige Thompson writes: makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers or will have more customers request a bigger block from the RIRs. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org writes: In message 54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com, Paige Thompson writes: makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers or will have more customers request a bigger block from the RIRs. Mark Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the order of 16 million allocations. I can't imagine anyone but the truly behemoth access network operators being able to justify a larger allocation with a straight face.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Policy allows any ISP (LIR) with need greater than /32 to easily qualify for what they need up to /12. I know of at least two entities that have applied for and with minimal effort and appropriate justification, received /24 allocations and many with /28s. Owen On Oct 9, 2014, at 07:00, Paige Thompson paigead...@gmail.com wrote: makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. On 10/09/14 12:29, Mark Andrews wrote: In message 1aa6f1a9-d63b-4066-903d-0e8690c7c...@isi.edu, manning bill writes: yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing = all that dark space, esp. when virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 and if everyone hands out /48's you just filter /48's. With a mix of /56 and /48 you need to filter at the /56 level. Given enterpises are getting /48's it will be simpler overall for everyone to get /48's. On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: =20 Give them a /48. This is IPv6 not IPv4. Take the IPv4 glasses off and put on the IPv6 glasses. Stop constraining your customers because you feel that it is a waste. It is not a waste It will also reduce the number of exceptions you need to process and make over all administration easier. =20 As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in the future not just traditional routers. It will have descrete internal components which communicate using IPv6 and those components need to talk to each other and the world. In a IPv4 world they would be NAT'd. In a IPv6 world the router requests a prefix. =20 Mark =20 In message 495d0934da46854a9ca758393724d5906da...@ni-mail02.nii.ads, = Erik Sun dberg writes: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to = figure o=3D ut our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is = everyone givi=3D ng for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea = of ha=3D nding a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me = cring=3D e at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never = have m=3D ore than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for = more I=3D Pv6 Space. =20 /64 /60 /56 /48 =20 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? =20 Thanks =20 Erik =20 =20 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, = files =3D or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential = informa=3D tion that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended = recipient, or =3D a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you = are h=3D ereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of = any of =3D the information contained in or attached to this transmission is = STRICTLY P=3D ROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please = notify th=3D e sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the = origi=3D nal transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any = manne=3D r. Thank you. --=20 Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. 4. Keeping in mind 4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be excluded from the global routing table 4.1a Prefix cutouts of any size (including /48) from inside your /32 or larger block may be excluded from the global routing table. Folks who are multihomed and thus need to advertise their own block with BGP should be referred to ARIN for a direct assignment. Folks who aren't multihomed, well, until given evidence otherwise I claim there are no single-homed entities who will use 65,000 LANs, let alone more. = This brings up another interesting question... We operate Two separate networks in two geographical locations (Two ASN), we have a single /32 allocation from ARIN. Question: Should we be asking ARIN for another /32 so that each network has it's own /32 or should be break out the /32 into /36 and use these in each of the geographies ? Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
2014-10-09 16:22 GMT+02:00 Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net: Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the order of 16 million allocations. I can't imagine anyone but the truly behemoth access network operators being able to justify a larger allocation with a straight face. Ripe is handing out /29 without any additional documentation current IPv4 usage documentation should do the trick to request larger blocks for deployment of /48 to customers
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in the future not just traditional routers. I'm expecting every molecule in every compound to have an embedded IPv6 address which can be read via NFC or some similar technology; and every nanomachine which is pumped into every heart patient to clear out arterial plaque to have one; and every windowblind in every window in every house and apartment and condominium and so forth to have one; etc. And for the vast majority of those addresses to be limited-duration, one-time-use addresses, and for their address space never to be recovered and resubmitted back into the free address pool. Which is one reason why I think that this trend of encouraging overly profligate allocation of IPv6 addresses is ill-considered. We've already seen the folly of /64s for point-to-point links in terms of turning routers and layer-3 switches into sinkholes. Do we really want to turn each and every network, no matter how small, into a 'strange attractor' for potentially significant amounts of irrelevant and undesirable traffic? Yes, I fully understand how huge the IPv6 address space really is - but I also believe that the general conception of what will constitute a node is extremely shortsighted, even by those who are evangelizing the so-called 'Internet of Things', and that a huge proportion of the IPv6 address space will eventually end up being allocated for limited-duration, one-time use in applications such as those cited above. I also believe that we need to drastically expand our projected timescales for the utility of IPv6, while keeping those address-hungry potential applications in mind. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Also, claiming that 90% will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets simply displays a complete lack of imagination. On the contrary, I believe that the increase in the potential address pool size will lead to much flatter, less hierarchical networks - while at the same time leading to most nodes being highly multi-homed into various virtual topologies, thereby leading to significant increases of addresses per node. A 'node' being things like molecules, nanites, window blinds, soda cans, etc. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
I've been using /36s per location, but hm -- great question. How easy is it to get a larger allocation anyway? In RIPE, i.e: you just ask and get a /29 with no questions asked. On 10/9/2014 午後 11:31, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. 4. Keeping in mind 4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be excluded from the global routing table 4.1a Prefix cutouts of any size (including /48) from inside your /32 or larger block may be excluded from the global routing table. Folks who are multihomed and thus need to advertise their own block with BGP should be referred to ARIN for a direct assignment. Folks who aren't multihomed, well, until given evidence otherwise I claim there are no single-homed entities who will use 65,000 LANs, let alone more. = This brings up another interesting question... We operate Two separate networks in two geographical locations (Two ASN), we have a single /32 allocation from ARIN. Question: Should we be asking ARIN for another /32 so that each network has it's own /32 or should be break out the /32 into /36 and use these in each of the geographies ? Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. Legend has it that the US DOD applied for a /8 - and got smacked down :-) Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the order of 16 million allocations. If, as you should be, you are assigning /48s, it's only 65536. Not that big. That's why it's the *minimum* allocation. Larger allocations are possible and I suspect quite common. Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882 Old fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. Yes; ISTR several /20s and even a /19 were the largest ... until the US DoD got the equivalent of a /13. Quick looks: https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/ http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2008-05/msg00276.html /TJ
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Karsten Elfenbein karsten.elfenb...@gmail.com wrote: Ripe is handing out /29 without any additional documentation current IPv4 usage documentation should do the trick to request larger blocks for deployment of /48 to customers And /19s with documentation. Europe will by God not end up with fewer IPv6 addresses than the U.S. like has happened with IPv4. -Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net wrote: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org writes: In message 54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com, Paige Thompson writes: makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers or will have more customers request a bigger block from the RIRs. Mark Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. I think I answered this before you asked it, but yes,easily on multiple occasions. The largest two allocations I have worked on were /24s, but I’m sure those are not ARIN’s largest allocations. Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the order of 16 million allocations. I can't imagine anyone but the truly behemoth access network operators being able to justify a larger allocation with a straight face. You should, however, be assigning a /48 to every end user and that’s only 65,536 allocations. Further, you want to be able to aggregate at least one level in your network, so you may not be able to get anything close to 100% efficiency in that distribution. ARIN policy, for example, defines what is known as a Provider Allocation Unit (PAU). Your PAU is the smallest allocation you give to your customers, so if you’re giving out /64s, then your PAU becomes /64. If you’re giving out /56s, then your PAU is /56. As such, you’re better off to give /48s to everyone because that sets your PAU at /48. All of your utilization is measured in terms of PAUs. You then pick an aggregation level in your network to use as your “serving center” definition. It could be the POP, or some higher level of aggregation containing multiple POPs. Look at the number of end sites served by the largest of those “serving centers” and round that up to a power of 16 (a nibble boundary, e.g. 16, 256, 4096, 65536) such that the number of end sites is not more than 75% of the chosen poser of 16. Then take the number of “serving centers” you expect to have in ~5 years (though the exact forward looking time is not actually specified in policy) and round that up to a nibble boundary as well. That is the size of allocation you can get from ARIN. So, for example, if you have 800,000 end-sites served from your largest POP and you have 400 POPs, then, 800,000 would be rounded up to 16,777,216 (24 bits) and your 400 POPs would be rounded up to 4096 (12 bits) so you would end up needing 36 bits. If your PAU is /48, you would apply for and receive a /12. Obviously this is an unusually large example. At a more realistic large ISP scale, let’s say you’ve got 5,000,000 subscribers in your largest serving center, but only 25 serving centers. This would, again, round up to 16,777,216 (24 bits) subscribers per serving center. But your 25 serving centers would round up to 256 (8 bits). That’s 32 bits, so instead of a /12, you’d get a /16. I hope that clarifies things for people. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. 4. Keeping in mind 4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be excluded from the global routing table 4.1a Prefix cutouts of any size (including /48) from inside your /32 or larger block may be excluded from the global routing table. Folks who are multihomed and thus need to advertise their own block with BGP should be referred to ARIN for a direct assignment. Folks who aren't multihomed, well, until given evidence otherwise I claim there are no single-homed entities who will use 65,000 LANs, let alone more. = This brings up another interesting question... We operate Two separate networks in two geographical locations (Two ASN), we have a single /32 allocation from ARIN. Question: Should we be asking ARIN for another /32 so that each network has it's own /32 or should be break out the /32 into /36 and use these in each of the geographies ? Depends on your needs… Either is a viable solution, depending on your circumstances. ARIN has an MDN policy which would facilitate your acquisition of a second /32. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? Is there a reason we are ignoring it? http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting As we recently discovered ARIN is handing out IPv6 allocations on nibble boundaries. Either a /32 or /28 for service providers. A justification and utilization plan is need to get a /28. It is also double the cost per year. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net wrote: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org writes: In message 54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com, Paige Thompson writes: makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers or will have more customers request a bigger block from the RIRs. Mark Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. I think I answered this before you asked it, but yes,easily on multiple occasions. The largest two allocations I have worked on were /24s, but I’m sure those are not ARIN’s largest allocations. Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the order of 16 million allocations. I can't imagine anyone but the truly behemoth access network operators being able to justify a larger allocation with a straight face. You should, however, be assigning a /48 to every end user and that’s only 65,536 allocations. Further, you want to be able to aggregate at least one level in your network, so you may not be able to get anything close to 100% efficiency in that distribution. ARIN policy, for example, defines what is known as a Provider Allocation Unit (PAU). Your PAU is the smallest allocation you give to your customers, so if you’re giving out /64s, then your PAU becomes /64. If you’re giving out /56s, then your PAU is /56. As such, you’re better off to give /48s to everyone because that sets your PAU at /48. All of your utilization is measured in terms of PAUs. You then pick an aggregation level in your network to use as your “serving center” definition. It could be the POP, or some higher level of aggregation containing multiple POPs. Look at the number of end sites served by the largest of those “serving centers” and round that up to a power of 16 (a nibble boundary, e.g. 16, 256, 4096, 65536) such that the number of end sites is not more than 75% of the chosen poser of 16. Then take the number of “serving centers” you expect to have in ~5 years (though the exact forward looking time is not actually specified in policy) and round that up to a nibble boundary as well. That is the size of allocation you can get from ARIN. So, for example, if you have 800,000 end-sites served from your largest POP and you have 400 POPs, then, 800,000 would be rounded up to 16,777,216 (24 bits) and your 400 POPs would be rounded up to 4096 (12 bits) so you would end up needing 36 bits. If your PAU is /48, you would apply for and receive a /12. Obviously this is an unusually large example. At a more realistic large ISP scale, let’s say you’ve got 5,000,000 subscribers in your largest serving center, but only 25 serving centers. This would, again, round up to 16,777,216 (24 bits) subscribers per serving center. But your 25 serving centers would round up to 256 (8 bits). That’s 32 bits, so instead of a /12, you’d get a /16. I hope that clarifies things for people. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On 10/9/14 8:45 AM, TJ wrote: On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. Yes; ISTR several /20s and even a /19 were the largest ... until the US DoD got the equivalent of a /13. Quick looks: https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/ http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2008-05/msg00276.html Many lir / provider assignments are shorter than a 32 you see them in bgp... http://bgp.he.net/AS701#_prefixes6 http://bgp.he.net/AS7922#_prefixes6 http://bgp.he.net/AS1299#_prefixes6 /TJ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to doubt. I think we will see larger network segments, but I think we will also see greater separation of networks into segments along various administrative and/or automatic aggregation boundaries. The virtual topologies you describe will likely also have related prefix consequences. Owen On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Also, claiming that 90% will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets simply displays a complete lack of imagination. On the contrary, I believe that the increase in the potential address pool size will lead to much flatter, less hierarchical networks - while at the same time leading to most nodes being highly multi-homed into various virtual topologies, thereby leading to significant increases of addresses per node. A 'node' being things like molecules, nanites, window blinds, soda cans, etc. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
It’s entirely likely that someone attempted to get a /31 from ARIN recently and they most definitely would have been smacked down, but not because they couldn’t get more than a /32. ARIN will not issue a /31 under current policy, but if you need more than ~48,000 end-sites, you easily qualify for a /28. Owen On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote: On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. Legend has it that the US DOD applied for a /8 - and got smacked down :-) Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the order of 16 million allocations. If, as you should be, you are assigning /48s, it's only 65536. Not that big. That's why it's the *minimum* allocation. Larger allocations are possible and I suspect quite common. Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882 Old fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to doubt. Various controlled compounds have been chemically tagged for years. NFC or something similar is the logical next step (it also holds a lot of promise and implications for supply-chains in general, physical security applications, transportation, etc.). I think we will see larger network segments, but I think we will also see greater separation of networks into segments along various administrative and/or automatic aggregation boundaries. The virtual topologies you describe will likely also have related prefix consequences. Concur, but my guess is that they will be essentially superimposed, without any increase in hierarchy - in fact, quite the opposite. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Question: Should we be asking ARIN for another /32 so that each network has it's own /32 or should be break out the /32 into /36 and use these in each of the geographies ? Depends on your needs… Either is a viable solution, depending on your circumstances. ARIN has an MDN policy which would facilitate your acquisition of a second /32. Thank you Owen, just got off the phone with ARIN, it should be a fairly simple process for us, and we will follow the advice of using a /32 for each geographical location. The overall discussion has been a very interesting one, and it would appear that the majority of the forward looking opinion is to allocate /48 to customers, and don't do any smaller subnet allocation. We will take this advice and re-evaluate our policies. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: William Herrin b...@herrin.us, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:20:14 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. 4. Keeping in mind 4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be excluded from the global routing table 4.1a Prefix cutouts of any size (including /48) from inside your /32 or larger block may be excluded from the global routing table. Folks who are multihomed and thus need to advertise their own block with BGP should be referred to ARIN for a direct assignment. Folks who aren't multihomed, well, until given evidence otherwise I claim there are no single-homed entities who will use 65,000 LANs, let alone more. = This brings up another interesting question... We operate Two separate networks in two geographical locations (Two ASN), we have a single /32 allocation from ARIN. Question: Should we be asking ARIN for another /32 so that each network has it's own /32 or should be break out the /32 into /36 and use these in each of the geographies ? Depends on your needs… Either is a viable solution, depending on your circumstances. ARIN has an MDN policy which would facilitate your acquisition of a second /32. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? Is there a reason we are ignoring it? http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting Speaking for myself, I did review that doc, and had some confusion about allocating /64 to Resi-Subscribers. However the broader discussion seems to evolved into a /48 vs /56 discussion, and looks like there is a decent compelling case being made for /48 and not to bother with /56's ... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Richard Hicks richard.hi...@gmail.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:29:21 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? Is there a reason we are ignoring it? http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting As we recently discovered ARIN is handing out IPv6 allocations on nibble boundaries. Either a /32 or /28 for service providers. A justification and utilization plan is need to get a /28. It is also double the cost per year. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Daniel Corbe co...@corbe.net wrote: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org writes: In message 54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com, Paige Thompson writes: makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers or will have more customers request a bigger block from the RIRs. Mark Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. I think I answered this before you asked it, but yes,easily on multiple occasions. The largest two allocations I have worked on were /24s, but I’m sure those are not ARIN’s largest allocations. Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the order of 16 million allocations. I can't imagine anyone but the truly behemoth access network operators being able to justify a larger allocation with a straight face. You should, however, be assigning a /48 to every end user and that’s only 65,536 allocations. Further, you want to be able to aggregate at least one level in your network, so you may not be able to get anything close to 100% efficiency in that distribution. ARIN policy, for example, defines what is known as a Provider Allocation Unit (PAU). Your PAU is the smallest allocation you give to your customers, so if you’re giving out /64s, then your PAU becomes /64. If you’re giving out /56s, then your PAU is /56. As such, you’re better off to give /48s to everyone because that sets your PAU at /48. All of your utilization is measured in terms of PAUs. You then pick an aggregation level in your network to use as your “serving center” definition. It could be the POP, or some higher level of aggregation containing multiple POPs. Look at the number of end sites served by the largest of those “serving centers” and round that up to a power of 16 (a nibble boundary, e.g. 16, 256, 4096, 65536) such that the number of end sites is not more than 75% of the chosen poser of 16. Then take the number of “serving centers” you expect to have in ~5 years (though the exact forward looking time is not actually specified in policy) and round that up to a nibble boundary as well. That is the size of allocation you can get from ARIN. So, for example, if you have 800,000 end-sites served from your largest POP and you have 400 POPs, then, 800,000 would be rounded up to 16,777,216 (24 bits) and your 400 POPs would be rounded up to 4096 (12 bits) so you would end up needing 36 bits. If your PAU is /48, you would apply for and receive a /12. Obviously this is an unusually large example. At a more realistic large ISP scale, let’s say you’ve got 5,000,000 subscribers in your largest serving center, but only 25 serving centers. This would, again, round up to 16,777,216 (24 bits) subscribers per serving center. But your 25 serving centers would round up to 256 (8 bits). That’s 32 bits, so instead of a /12, you’d get a /16. I hope that clarifies things for people. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Richard Hicks richard.hi...@gmail.com wrote: Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? Is there a reason we are ignoring it? Hi Richard, It's dated (a *lot* about IPv6 has changed since 2011) and a we've learned enough to know some of the things in there are dubious. For example: Regardless of the number of hosts on an individual LAN or WAN segment, every multi-access network (non-point-to-point) requires at least one /64 prefix. But using /64s on WAN links invites needless problems with neighbor discovery when an attacker decides to send one ping each to half a million adresses all of which happen to land on that WAN link. WAN links should really use something whose size is much closer to the number of routers on the link, in the same order of magnitude anyway. So /64s for LANs, sure, but size the WAN links small to make them less vulnerable to attack. And: Only subnet on nibble boundaries is not reasonable. When I need two LANs in a building I should burn 14 more to get to a nibble boundary? Really? Only delegate on nibble boundaries is a more reasonable statement. When you assign addresses to your customer or to a different internal team's control, THAT should be on a nibble boundary for the customer's convenience understanding the written-down version of what network is theirs and for your convenience when it comes time to delegate reverse DNS. Inside your network under control of the same engineers, subnet and route just as you would with IPv4. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 8:45 AM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 through ARIN and got smacked down. Yes; ISTR several /20s and even a /19 were the largest ... until the US DoD got the equivalent of a /13. Quick looks: https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/ http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/2008-05/msg00276.html /TJ What DoD actually got as AIUI was a slew of allocations throughout a /13, but not an actual /13. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Richard Hicks richard.hi...@gmail.com wrote: Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? Is there a reason we are ignoring it? Hi Richard, It's dated (a *lot* about IPv6 has changed since 2011) and a we've learned enough to know some of the things in there are dubious. For example: Regardless of the number of hosts on an individual LAN or WAN segment, every multi-access network (non-point-to-point) requires at least one /64 prefix. But using /64s on WAN links invites needless problems with neighbor discovery when an attacker decides to send one ping each to half a million adresses all of which happen to land on that WAN link. WAN links should really use something whose size is much closer to the number of routers on the link, in the same order of magnitude anyway. So /64s for LANs, sure, but size the WAN links small to make them less vulnerable to attack. The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b: *b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured with a /126 or /127* And: Only subnet on nibble boundaries is not reasonable. When I need two LANs in a building I should burn 14 more to get to a nibble boundary? Really? Only delegate on nibble boundaries is a more reasonable statement. When you assign addresses to your customer or to a different internal team's control, THAT should be on a nibble boundary for the customer's convenience understanding the written-down version of what network is theirs and for your convenience when it comes time to delegate reverse DNS. Inside your network under control of the same engineers, subnet and route just as you would with IPv4. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Richard Hicks richard.hi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: Regardless of the number of hosts on an individual LAN or WAN segment, every multi-access network (non-point-to-point) requires at least one /64 prefix. But using /64s on WAN links invites needless problems with neighbor discovery when an attacker decides to send one ping each to half a million adresses all of which happen to land on that WAN link. The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b: b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured with a /126 or /127 It says, effectively, that a WAN link involving 3 or 4 routers (a common redundancy design) should use a /64. I think that's nuts. It creates a needlessly wide attack surface. Use a /124 for that. And if our subnets should be on nibble boundaries, /126 and /127 on ptp links aren't so wise either. Use a /124 for that too. -Bill -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to doubt. Various controlled compounds have been chemically tagged for years. NFC or something similar is the logical next step (it also holds a lot of promise and implications for supply-chains in general, physical security applications, transportation, etc.). But those chemical tags are generally multiple, not single molecules. NFC still requires something with a unique radiographic property, so not likely in a single molecule. I think we will see larger network segments, but I think we will also see greater separation of networks into segments along various administrative and/or automatic aggregation boundaries. The virtual topologies you describe will likely also have related prefix consequences. Concur, but my guess is that they will be essentially superimposed, without any increase in hierarchy - in fact, quite the opposite. Indeed, I think we will end up agreeing to disagree about this, but it will be interesting to see what happens over years to come. I suspect that the answer to which way this goes will be somewhat context sensitive. In some cases, hierarchies will be collapsed. In others, they will expand. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On 9 October 2014 19:55, Richard Hicks richard.hi...@gmail.com wrote: The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b: *b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured with a /126 or /127* Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Same trick works for IPv4 too. Regards, Baldur
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? It makes remote detection of carrier on the interface as simple as ping -Bill -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 October 2014 19:55, Richard Hicks richard.hi...@gmail.com wrote: The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b: *b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured with a /126 or /127* Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Same trick works for IPv4 too. Regards, Baldur SARCASM And it makes your trace-routes across parallel links oh so easy to identify which of them is at fault for the packet loss, too. /SARCASM There are a number of good technical reasons to want distinct addresses on point to point links. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Same trick works for IPv4 too. Regards, Baldur SARCASM And it makes your trace-routes across parallel links oh so easy to identify which of them is at fault for the packet loss, too. /SARCASM There are a ton of other technologies with the same problem. Do you never use link aggregation? My parallel links are all link aggregations, so I would not have a way to identify links by traceroute anyway. There are a number of good technical reasons to want distinct addresses on point to point links. I am sure there are. Tell me about them. I am not disputing that there are many reasons to sometimes use link addresses. My question is why do you do it by default? So far we have heard two arguments: 1) You can ping the link address. I assume his equipment will down the address if the link is down. My equipment does not do this, I can ping it as long it is administrative up no matter link status. So this test is useless to me. I am monitoring links by SNMP anyway. 2) Parallel links. I don't have many of those, and the ones I have are link aggregations. MPLS interferes with this too. On the other hand not using link addresses has some advantages: 1) You don't need to assign and document them. 2) It is easy to think about: Router A talks to Router B on link AB. Every router has only one address so you don't need to remember which address to use. 3) You avoid having a lot of addresses configured on your router. 4) You are immune to all the NDP attacks. 5) You are immune to the monthly NANOG debate about using /127 vs /126 vs /124 vs /64. The correct answer is clearly use /128 :-). Regards, Baldur
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: I am sure there are. Tell me about them. This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, many times over the years. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6752 -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 9, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Same trick works for IPv4 too. Regards, Baldur SARCASM And it makes your trace-routes across parallel links oh so easy to identify which of them is at fault for the packet loss, too. /SARCASM There are a ton of other technologies with the same problem. Do you never use link aggregation? My parallel links are all link aggregations, so I would not have a way to identify links by traceroute anyway. Your design problems don’t have to be mine. Just because you have created that problem through another mechanism doesn’t pose a reason anyone else should accept the same problem in a different circumstance. There are a number of good technical reasons to want distinct addresses on point to point links. I am sure there are. Tell me about them. I gave you one. You decided to dismiss it on the basis of “it wouldn’t help me anyway because I use this other thing that is broken that way regardless.” Some others (not a conclusive list by any means): Having public addresses in trace-routes, ideally with good reverse DNS is actually useful. Clarity is almost always an advantage over obscurity when one is troubleshooting something. Being able to ping the link address is useful for troubleshooting. Being able to source packets from a particular link address can be useful for troubleshooting. I am not disputing that there are many reasons to sometimes use link addresses. My question is why do you do it by default? So far we have heard two arguments: 1) You can ping the link address. I assume his equipment will down the address if the link is down. My equipment does not do this, I can ping it as long it is administrative up no matter link status. So this test is useless to me. I am monitoring links by SNMP anyway. I can’t help that your equipment is ill-behaved at best. Perhaps you should consider alternatives. I certainly don’t think that designing everyone else’s network to the level of brokenness in your particular environment is particularly valid. 2) Parallel links. I don't have many of those, and the ones I have are link aggregations. MPLS interferes with this too. On the other hand not using link addresses has some advantages: 1) You don't need to assign and document them. Sure you do, it’s just harder. You’re now using essentially an “unnumbered interface” which needs to be documented as such so that people know that when a given loopback shows up, it’s not a unique identifier, but ambiguous across several interfaces. 2) It is easy to think about: Router A talks to Router B on link AB. Every router has only one address so you don't need to remember which address to use. I don’t have to remember which address to use normally. This is not an advantage. I can always use the loopback address to talk to a router if my environment is correctly functioning. If it is not, removing the ambiguity of unnumbered link addresses is more helpful than being able to use one address for each router while unable to know how traffic is actually flowing as a result. 3) You avoid having a lot of addresses configured on your router. I don’t see this as an advantage. For a number of reasons (some of which I have expressed above) it is, in fact, a disadvantage. 4) You are immune to all the NDP attacks. No you aren’t. You just change the nature of those attacks. 5) You are immune to the monthly NANOG debate about using /127 vs /126 vs /124 vs /64. The correct answer is clearly use /128 :-). Except that it’s clearly an incorrect answer, IMHO. Owen
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On 9 October 2014 22:32, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: I am sure there are. Tell me about them. This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, many times over the years. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6752 The linked document talks about issues with using private IP addresses. I am not suggesting that you do that. I am suggesting that you use _no_ IP addresses on the links. Generally the devices will use the loopback IP, which will be public, for your traceroutes and for ICMP. None of the issues in RFC 6752 are applicable to the concept of using host routes to peer loopback address instead of assigning link specific addressing. Regards, Baldur
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: I am sure there are. Tell me about them. This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, many times over the years. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6752 Hi Roland, 6752 isn't germane; it has to do with using private IP addresses on routers, which borks things up when the router has to generate an ICMP type 3. Baldur want's to know: why not just use one public IP address per router and use it on all interfaces? Baldur, one IP per router can work just as well as one subnet per interface. But there are some gotchas: Your router has one IP. Your customer has a subnet. Do you add an extra deaggregated single IP to your routing table for his router? There are more routers than links, so if you assign subnets to routers instead of links you'll have to carry more routes. If you borrow the customer LAN-side IP for the WAN side you'll get grief when his equipment is one of those that doesn't respond if the LAN-side interface is down (e.g. Cisco). That gets kind of nasty when troubleshooting and remediating problems. And of course the more knowledge you can gather from diagnostic tools like traceroute, the more quickly you can identify the problem when something doesn't work right.. In my own networks... I want to keep as many IPv4 addresses as I can, so my router interfaces borrow their ip from loop0. In IPv6 where I can have a functionally infinite number of /124's I want to put one on each interface and gain the mild extra benefit. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
I am sorry if I stepped on something sore. I am not dismissing any arguments, and I am genuinely interested in any advantages and disadvantages to the approach. There is more than one way to design a network and all I am saying is this far it is working great for me. The two disadvantages put forward so far have not been of any consequences in my network. But I am concerned that you say that I am still vulnerable to NDP attacks. Could you elaborate on that please? About loopback not being an unique identifier, please remember that none of the IP addresses on a host is that. An IP address belongs to the host, not the interface. Creating addresses on interfaces is just an alias for creating the same address as loopback and adding a net route on the interface. Don't believe me? Try it out! I can’t help that your equipment is ill-behaved at best. That is not ill-behaved. It is the correct behavior. Try unplugging the netcable from your computer - you will NOT lose the IP-address unless you have a DHCP daemon that takes it away. Regards, Baldur On 9 October 2014 22:38, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Oct 9, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Same trick works for IPv4 too. Regards, Baldur SARCASM And it makes your trace-routes across parallel links oh so easy to identify which of them is at fault for the packet loss, too. /SARCASM There are a ton of other technologies with the same problem. Do you never use link aggregation? My parallel links are all link aggregations, so I would not have a way to identify links by traceroute anyway. Your design problems don’t have to be mine. Just because you have created that problem through another mechanism doesn’t pose a reason anyone else should accept the same problem in a different circumstance. There are a number of good technical reasons to want distinct addresses on point to point links. I am sure there are. Tell me about them. I gave you one. You decided to dismiss it on the basis of “it wouldn’t help me anyway because I use this other thing that is broken that way regardless.” Some others (not a conclusive list by any means): Having public addresses in trace-routes, ideally with good reverse DNS is actually useful. Clarity is almost always an advantage over obscurity when one is troubleshooting something. Being able to ping the link address is useful for troubleshooting. Being able to source packets from a particular link address can be useful for troubleshooting. I am not disputing that there are many reasons to sometimes use link addresses. My question is why do you do it by default? So far we have heard two arguments: 1) You can ping the link address. I assume his equipment will down the address if the link is down. My equipment does not do this, I can ping it as long it is administrative up no matter link status. So this test is useless to me. I am monitoring links by SNMP anyway. I can’t help that your equipment is ill-behaved at best. Perhaps you should consider alternatives. I certainly don’t think that designing everyone else’s network to the level of brokenness in your particular environment is particularly valid. 2) Parallel links. I don't have many of those, and the ones I have are link aggregations. MPLS interferes with this too. On the other hand not using link addresses has some advantages: 1) You don't need to assign and document them. Sure you do, it’s just harder. You’re now using essentially an “unnumbered interface” which needs to be documented as such so that people know that when a given loopback shows up, it’s not a unique identifier, but ambiguous across several interfaces. 2) It is easy to think about: Router A talks to Router B on link AB. Every router has only one address so you don't need to remember which address to use. I don’t have to remember which address to use normally. This is not an advantage. I can always use the loopback address to talk to a router if my environment is correctly functioning. If it is not, removing the ambiguity of unnumbered link addresses is more helpful than being able to use one address for each router while unable to know how traffic is actually flowing as a result. 3) You avoid having a lot of addresses configured on your router. I don’t see this as an advantage. For a number of reasons (some of which I have expressed above) it is, in fact, a disadvantage. 4) You are immune to all the NDP attacks. No you aren’t. You just change the nature of those attacks. 5) You are immune to the monthly NANOG debate
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:49 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: 6752 isn't germane; it has to do with using private IP addresses on routers, which borks things up when the router has to generate an ICMP type 3. I beg to differ, as noted by Owen DeLong in this same thread: On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Having public addresses in trace-routes, ideally with good reverse DNS is actually useful. Clarity is almost always an advantage over obscurity when one is troubleshooting something. Being able to ping the link address is useful for troubleshooting. Being able to source packets from a particular link address can be useful for troubleshooting. Several of the very same caveats apply - that's why I cited the informational RFC with regards to private IP addressing, rather than re-typing the same things all over again. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: I am not dismissing any arguments, and I am genuinely interested in any advantages and disadvantages to the approach. My prediction is that you will remain an advocate of unnumbered links until such time as you have to troubleshoot issues hop-by-hop in a network of any non-trivial size/complexity. Then, your views on this topic will likely change. Many of the same caveats noted in RFC6752 apply to unnumbered interfaces, as well. That's why I cited it. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: But all this are customer facing interfaces, which do not really qualify for point to point links. I might consider adding interface addressing for IPv6, but for me IPv4 was the primary design parameter. Having IPv6 mirror the IPv4 setup means I have to think less about the setup. And we are really constrained to use as few IPv4 addresses as possible. We only got 1024 from RIPE and have to buy any additional at great expense. Hi Baldur, If that's convenient, more power to you. I can think of nothing which breaks doing it that way, just a couple things that might be easier if you do it the other way. My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the infrastructure. This, however, is positively 100% broken. Do not use private IPs on your routers. The TCP protocol depends on receiving ICMP type 3 (destination unreachable) messages from your router. Without ICMP messages needed for path MTU detection, TCP connections somewhat randomly drop into a black hole. Have a customer who connects to your web server but never receives the web page? Look for the firewall blocking ICMP. If those ICMP messages originate from private IP addresses, they will not reach their destination. Private IPs tend to be dropped at multiple locations out on the public Internet. So don't use private IPs on routers. Routers must be able to generate ICMP destination unreachables with the expectation that they _will_ get through. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On 9 October 2014 23:18, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the infrastructure. Your colleagues are wrong. Again, see RFC6752. Yes, for using private IP addressing RFC 6752 applies and it is why we are not doing it. But you seem to completely fail to understand that RFC 6752 does not apply to the proposed solution. NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered interfaces. Traceroute works. ICMP works. There are no private IP addresses that gets filtered. I am wondering if all the nay sayers would not agree that is it better to have a single public loopback address shared between all my interfaces, than to go with private addressing completely? This is a false dichotomy. Because frankly, that is the alternative. It isn't the only alternative. The *optimal* alternative is to use publicly-routable link addresses, and then protect your infrastructure using iACLs, GTSM, CoPP, et. al. I will as soon as you send me the check to buy addresses for all my links. I got a few. But it appears you do not realize that we ARE using public IPs for our infrastructure. And we ARE using ACLs for protecting it. We are not using addresses for LINKS, neither public nor private. And it is not for security but to conserve expensive address space. The thing is that we will only use ONE public address for a router. And the router will be using that address for traceroute, ICMP et al. And therefore RFC 6752 does not apply. What started this thread was the simple observation that you can do the same with IPv6. In that case I am doing it because it is simpler to do the same thing on both protocols. And frankly I am not seeing the disadvantages put fourth so far as being anything worth taking extra management work for. What I am mostly getting from the responses here are not much useful, other than a lot of people screaming he his doing something different so he must be an idiot :-(. Well aside from Bill, which is apparently doing the same thing for the same reason (cost). Regards, Baldur
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered interfaces. As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using private IP addresses. And see Section 9. My point is that *analogous* issues arise with unnumbered interfaces. Loopback-only addressing isn't sufficient for troubleshooting purposes and other routine operational activities. The thing is that we will only use ONE public address for a router. And the router will be using that address for traceroute, ICMP et al. And therefore RFC 6752 does not apply. Again, see Section 9. *Analogous* issues arise in networks with unnumbered interfaces. I'm aware that PMTU-D will work with the setup you propose. You might want to take a look at Appendix A, too. It sounds as if there is an unfortunate shortfall in the budget for your organization. Personally, I wouldn't attempt to build and operate a network which required more funding than was made available in order to implement it optimally. Doing things the suboptimal way in IPv4 isn't a valid reason replicate those suboptimalities in IPv6. I wish you luck in troubleshooting an infrastructure full of unnumbered links - I've done it, and it isn't fun. What I am mostly getting from the responses here are not much useful, other than a lot of people screaming he his doing something different so he must be an idiot That is incorrect. You've been told repeatedly that troubleshooting unnumbered links is highly suboptimal; you've merely dismissed those arguments for reasons best known to yourself. -- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Equo ne credite, Teucri. -- Laocoön
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On 10 October 2014 00:37, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote: On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote: NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered interfaces. As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using private IP addresses. I see nothing in section 8 that is broken in my network. My public loopback address is in DNS and reverse DNS works fine too. And see Section 9. I see nothing in section 9 that is broken in my network. Traceroute works perfectly. You do not get a string of * * * back. You get the IP of the loopback which in turn goes through reverse DNS to tell you what router is processing that step. The only difference between a traceroute using unnumbered interfaces and using numbered interfaces, is that you only get information about the router and not the link. My point is that *analogous* issues arise with unnumbered interfaces. Loopback-only addressing isn't sufficient for troubleshooting purposes and other routine operational activities. That is really up to me? 99% of my interfaces are unnumbered by the virtue of being on access switches that simply have no layer 3 capability other than management. Nobody is crazy enough to assign /30s to end users anymore anyway. It is not my business to sell backbone links. I sell end user links and those are unnumbered in my network and everyone else too. I claim this argument is mostly BS. Information about link in traceroute is nice to have. It is not need to have. I have never been in doubt of what traceroute was telling me. Besides I have more effective methods to troubleshoot my links. The thing is that we will only use ONE public address for a router. And the router will be using that address for traceroute, ICMP et al. And therefore RFC 6752 does not apply. Again, see Section 9. *Analogous* issues arise in networks with unnumbered interfaces. I'm aware that PMTU-D will work with the setup you propose. That is not the only thing that works. Everything works. The only problem anyone has been able to point to is that you lose link information in traceroute and get host information in its stead. It is a small loss. You might want to take a look at Appendix A, too. What about it? That is incorrect. You've been told repeatedly that troubleshooting unnumbered links is highly suboptimal; you've merely dismissed those arguments for reasons best known to yourself. Maybe because on that one topic I am more an expert than you: I have experience troubleshooting my network, you don't. Regards, Baldur
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
* Baldur Norddahl Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Why do you need those host routes? Most IPv6 IGPs work just fine without global addresses or host routes. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-11 Tore
IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Give them a /48. This is IPv6 not IPv4. Take the IPv4 glasses off and put on the IPv6 glasses. Stop constraining your customers because you feel that it is a waste. It is not a waste It will also reduce the number of exceptions you need to process and make over all administration easier. As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in the future not just traditional routers. It will have descrete internal components which communicate using IPv6 and those components need to talk to each other and the world. In a IPv4 world they would be NAT'd. In a IPv6 world the router requests a prefix. Mark In message 495d0934da46854a9ca758393724d5906da...@ni-mail02.nii.ads, Erik Sun dberg writes: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure o= ut our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone givi= ng for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of ha= nding a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cring= e at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have m= ore than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more I= Pv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files = or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential informa= tion that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or = a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are h= ereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of = the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY P= ROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify th= e sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the origi= nal transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manne= r. Thank you. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
There seem to be lots of various opinions still on this subject. What type of customer are you dealing with, what service are they receiving? We are allocating a /64 per customer (VPS / dedicated server / small co-lo) but doing them on /56 boundaries so that we can easily expand their allocation if needed, as well as back-fill more /64 allocations in that address space. Mark On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Erik, On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Don’t cringe. Yeah, a /48 is a crazy amount of space, but that isn’t the resource we are likely to ever need to conserve in the lifetime of IPv6 (well, modulo insane allocation policies the RIR communities could potentially create, but hopefully rational folks will stop that. Hopefully). If you’re concerned, do the math: e.g., assume a couple of orders of magnitude more allocations per year than the current IPv4 burn rate, assume an IPv6 /48 = an IPv4 /32 and then see how many decades the existing /3 of global unicast IPv6 will last. The real issue is how we’re going to scale routing. Allocating /48s to all your customers out of your /32 (or /28 or whatever the default ISP allocation is this week) won’t affect that in any significant way. And besides, allocating all your customers a standard size should make your provisioning systems a lot easier, allowing you to conserve what’s really important... Regards, -drc
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik Erik, Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. 1. Design your address allocation systems using /48. 2. Estimate your ongoing address management costs using /48. 3. For each +4 in prefix length, estimate doubling your long term address management costs. 4. Keeping in mind 4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be excluded from the global routing table 4.2 Your customers want working Internet connections 4.3 You want income at a minimum of ongoing expense make a sensible business decision. Easy-peasy. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
I'm allocating /64s in /56 boundaries per customer. Allows me to give the client more should they need it without fuss. On 10/9/2014 午前 10:18, Erik Sundberg wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practice discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 9:18:16 PM Subject: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
In message 126729399.131320.1412825855138.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practice d iscussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 N! Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 9:18:16 PM Subject: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure o ut our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential informatio n that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Why would you only allocate a residential customer a single /64? That's totally short sighted in my view. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practice discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 9:18:16 PM Subject: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. A /48. There is waste, and there is waste. A /48 is not really significant waste because IPv6 address space is so large. If one believes in the truly connected home or enterprise, there will be a number of customer internal device delegations. Avoid having to renumber your customers when they do those internal networks of networks (yes, there are ways to do it transparently, but not having to do it means you avoid the pain of the transparent, which may not be transparent at all). As a residential customer, those that are handing me smaller blocks seem to be planning to charge extra for larger prefixes as a revenue stream (I presume just like one got a single IPv4 address, but could pay for more, now you get either a /64 or a /60, and get to pay for more for a /56 or /48). I consider that short sighted from a customer centric viewpoint, but I can see the revenue stream viewpoint. So, the only reason not to provide a /48 is if you think it is in your business plan to charge by the address (and hope your viable competitors in your market space follow a similar strategy, for I would always choose a provider that offers me more for the same, or less, money; I can even hear your competitors sales reps spiel Why build for obsolescence, we provide you all the space you will ever need at the same price and service level.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
You should probably increase those allocations. Residential Small Business Customers: /56 Medium Large size Business Customers: /48 Multi-location Business Customer: /48 per site On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practice discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Like I said, this was my understanding I am glad that it is being pointed out to be in-correct I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any reason Why NOT So, let me ask the question in a different manner... What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:47:01 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Why would you only allocate a residential customer a single /64? That's totally short sighted in my view. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practice discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 9:18:16 PM Subject: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Fair point just as a follow up question... is giving a /64 to a Residential Customer not a good idea, because it would not allow them to have additional routed segments ? (since Best Practices is to use a /64 on each link as link connectivity address) or is there some other reasoning that I am failing to see/ understand ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Philip Dorr tagn...@gmail.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:54:36 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out You should probably increase those allocations. Residential Small Business Customers: /56 Medium Large size Business Customers: /48 Multi-location Business Customer: /48 per site On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practice discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Like I said, this was my understanding I am glad that it is being pointed out to be in-correct I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any reason Why NOT So, let me ask the question in a different manner... What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). Quoting RFC6177 (successor to RFC3177): While the /48 recommendation does simplify address space management for end sites, it has also been widely criticized as being wasteful. For example, a large business (which may have thousands of employees) would, by default, receive the same amount of address space as a home user, who today typically has a single (or small number of) LAN and a small number of devices (dozens or less). While it seems likely that the size of a typical home network will grow over the next few decades, it is hard to argue that home sites will make use of 65K subnets within the foreseeable future. At the same time, it might be tempting to give home sites a single /64, since that is already significantly more address space compared with today's IPv4 practice. However, this precludes the expectation that even home sites will grow to support multiple subnets going forward. Hence, it is strongly intended that even home sites be given multiple subnets worth of space, by default. Hence, this document still recommends giving home sites significantly more than a single /64, but does not recommend that every home site be given a /48 either. A change in policy (such as above) would have a significant impact on address consumption projections and the expected longevity for IPv6. For example, changing the default assignment from a /48 to /56 (for the vast majority of end sites, e.g., home sites) would result in a savings of up to 8 bits, reducing the total projected address consumption by (up to) 8 bits or two orders of magnitude. (The exact amount of savings depends on the relative number of home users compared with the number of larger sites.) The above-mentioned goals of RFC 3177 can easily be met by giving home users a default assignment of less than /48, such as a /56. Royce
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). What happens when the resident pulls their car into their garage and their car requests a unique /64 so the various computers on the CAN can start syncing with the Internet? Car's media center starts downloading new music, engine controller uploads diagnostics, GPS navigator starts downloading new maps, etc. Different example: people like Jim Gettys and Dave Taht are pushing for consumer routers to start routing between WiFi and Ethernet instead of bridging the two out of the box, since WiFi tends to fall over so hard on multicast/broadcast traffic. Suddenly their router needs two subnets, and either one of them doesn't work, or they have to live with reduced WiFi performance. -- Kenneth Finnegan http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Awesome, Thank you Royce, the missing piece has clicked in place... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Royce Williams ro...@techsolvency.com To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:14:51 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Like I said, this was my understanding I am glad that it is being pointed out to be in-correct I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any reason Why NOT So, let me ask the question in a different manner... What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). Quoting RFC6177 (successor to RFC3177): While the /48 recommendation does simplify address space management for end sites, it has also been widely criticized as being wasteful. For example, a large business (which may have thousands of employees) would, by default, receive the same amount of address space as a home user, who today typically has a single (or small number of) LAN and a small number of devices (dozens or less). While it seems likely that the size of a typical home network will grow over the next few decades, it is hard to argue that home sites will make use of 65K subnets within the foreseeable future. At the same time, it might be tempting to give home sites a single /64, since that is already significantly more address space compared with today's IPv4 practice. However, this precludes the expectation that even home sites will grow to support multiple subnets going forward. Hence, it is strongly intended that even home sites be given multiple subnets worth of space, by default. Hence, this document still recommends giving home sites significantly more than a single /64, but does not recommend that every home site be given a /48 either. A change in policy (such as above) would have a significant impact on address consumption projections and the expected longevity for IPv6. For example, changing the default assignment from a /48 to /56 (for the vast majority of end sites, e.g., home sites) would result in a savings of up to 8 bits, reducing the total projected address consumption by (up to) 8 bits or two orders of magnitude. (The exact amount of savings depends on the relative number of home users compared with the number of larger sites.) The above-mentioned goals of RFC 3177 can easily be met by giving home users a default assignment of less than /48, such as a /56. Royce
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Yep, understood... in the ipv6 world we are looking at needing a significantly more 'routing' connectivity, than we do in the current ipv4 world. Thank you. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Kenneth Finnegan kennethfinnegan2...@gmail.com To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:16:59 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). What happens when the resident pulls their car into their garage and their car requests a unique /64 so the various computers on the CAN can start syncing with the Internet? Car's media center starts downloading new music, engine controller uploads diagnostics, GPS navigator starts downloading new maps, etc. Different example: people like Jim Gettys and Dave Taht are pushing for consumer routers to start routing between WiFi and Ethernet instead of bridging the two out of the box, since WiFi tends to fall over so hard on multicast/broadcast traffic. Suddenly their router needs two subnets, and either one of them doesn't work, or they have to live with reduced WiFi performance. -- Kenneth Finnegan http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
The biggest issue I see with only giving a /64 is that many residential customers may have have two routers, if the modem is not bridged and does not have WiFi. Another issue would be for people who want to use the guest SSID of many routers. With IPv6 I could see each SSID getting a /64.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
haha.. email timing delay .. The follow up question has been answered by a few others there, in their previous emails with appropriate explanations. Thank you to everyone who responded. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: tagn...@gmail.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:14:57 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Fair point just as a follow up question... is giving a /64 to a Residential Customer not a good idea, because it would not allow them to have additional routed segments ? (since Best Practices is to use a /64 on each link as link connectivity address) or is there some other reasoning that I am failing to see/ understand ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Philip Dorr tagn...@gmail.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:54:36 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out You should probably increase those allocations. Residential Small Business Customers: /56 Medium Large size Business Customers: /48 Multi-location Business Customer: /48 per site On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practice discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
In message 1627782497.131675.1412827629110.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: Like I said, this was my understanding I am glad that it is being pointed out to be in-correct I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any reason W hy NOT Because /64 only allows for a single subnet running SLAAC with currently defined specifications. So, let me ask the question in a different manner... What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). A /60, /56, /52 or /48 allows the client to run multiple SLAAC subnets (16, 256, 4096 or 65536) and to have the reverse ip6.arpa zone delegated on a nibble boundary. There is plenty of address space even handing out /48's to everyone. Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:47:01 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Why would you only allocate a residential customer a single /64? That's totally short sighted in my view. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practi ce discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocat e . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 9:18:16 PM Subject: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figu re out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will nev er have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of an y of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICT LY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please noti fy the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
A /60, /56, /52 or /48 allows the client to run multiple SLAAC subnets (16, 256, 4096 or 65536) and to have the reverse ip6.arpa zone delegated on a nibble boundary. Understood... There is plenty of address space even handing out /48's to everyone. Also Understood. Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:25:28 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out In message 1627782497.131675.1412827629110.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: Like I said, this was my understanding I am glad that it is being pointed out to be in-correct I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any reason W hy NOT Because /64 only allows for a single subnet running SLAAC with currently defined specifications. So, let me ask the question in a different manner... What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential customer (vs a /64). A /60, /56, /52 or /48 allows the client to run multiple SLAAC subnets (16, 256, 4096 or 65536) and to have the reverse ip6.arpa zone delegated on a nibble boundary. There is plenty of address space even handing out /48's to everyone. Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:47:01 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Why would you only allocate a residential customer a single /64? That's totally short sighted in my view. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my reading, best practi ce discussions etc.. Here is what i have understood so far:- Residential Customers: /64 Small Medium size Business Customers: /56 Large Business size or a multi-location Business Customer: /48 Don't skimp on allocating the subnets like we do on IPv4 Better to be 'wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocat e . Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom - Original Message - From: Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 9:18:16 PM Subject: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figu re out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will nev er have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of an y of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICT LY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please noti fy the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
In message 482678376.131852.1412829159356.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: A /60, /56, /52 or /48 allows the client to run multiple SLAAC subnets (16, 256, 4096 or 65536) and to have the reverse ip6.arpa zone delegated on a nibble boundary. Understood... There is plenty of address space even handing out /48's to everyone. Also Understood. Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. Mark Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
== Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. === So, this is more of a 'opinion' / 'feel' (with all due respect) comment, and not something which has a (presently) compelling technical reasoning behind it ? Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:40:07 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out In message 482678376.131852.1412829159356.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: A /60, /56, /52 or /48 allows the client to run multiple SLAAC subnets (16, 256, 4096 or 65536) and to have the reverse ip6.arpa zone delegated on a nibble boundary. Understood... There is plenty of address space even handing out /48's to everyone. Also Understood. Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. Mark Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Faisal, On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: So, this is more of a 'opinion' / 'feel' (with all due respect) comment, and not something which has a (presently) compelling technical reasoning behind it ? The technical reasoning behind /48 has been documented in many places. Lots of folks, particularly those who’ve struggled with justifying their “need” for IPv4 have developed “‘opinion’ / ‘feel’” about conserving address space. If you remove the limitations of IPv4 in terms of quantity of address space, what are the compelling technical reasons for longer than /48? Regards, -drc
RE: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
To paraphrase a post on this list a while ago (my apologies for lack of reference). There are two kinds of waste: - the first kind of waste is providing 'too many' subnets for someone; - the second kind of waste is leaving the space unallocated forever. If we choose the first option and somehow burn through the 35 trillion /48's out of the first /3 we're drawing from (ie, almost 5000 /48's for every person on the planet) then we can always reconsider how to be more conservative with the remaining 88% of unallocated IPv6 space. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: October-09-14 12:45 AM To: Mark Andrews Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out == Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. === So, this is more of a 'opinion' / 'feel' (with all due respect) comment, and not something which has a (presently) compelling technical reasoning behind it ? Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:40:07 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out In message 482678376.131852.1412829159356.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: A /60, /56, /52 or /48 allows the client to run multiple SLAAC subnets (16, 256, 4096 or 65536) and to have the reverse ip6.arpa zone delegated on a nibble boundary. Understood... There is plenty of address space even handing out /48's to everyone. Also Understood. Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. Mark Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
In message 2083423091.131955.1412829918586.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: == Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a sc ares resource. === So, this is more of a 'opinion' / 'feel' (with all due respect) comment, and not something which has a (presently) compelling technical reasoning behind i t ? There are thousands of examples of things being designed for the lowest common denominator. There are thousand of examples of this will never be reached only to have the thing be reached. Every time this happens it becomes expensive to correct. It causes operational issues for those on the leading edge. Your home router should support thousands of internal routes and be able to hand out thousands of prefixes all in a $50 box. Memory is cheap. It doesn't require lots of cpu to support something like a house even with thousands of subnets. If /56 becomes the norm the boxes will end up being designed for 256 subnets rather than the thousands it should be designed for thousands the hardware is capable of supporting. This unfortunately is human nature. Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org To: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net Cc: Sam Silvester sam.silves...@gmail.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:40:07 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out In message 482678376.131852.1412829159356.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net, Faisal Imtiaz writes: A /60, /56, /52 or /48 allows the client to run multiple SLAAC subnets (16, 256, 4096 or 65536) and to have the reverse ip6.arpa zone delegated on a nibble boundary. Understood... There is plenty of address space even handing out /48's to everyone. Also Understood. Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. Mark Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Mark, Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to /56 are making them a scares resource. The excerpt Royce quoted from RFC6177 (requoted below) seems to back away from /48s by default to all resi users and land in a somewhat vague more than a /64 please, but we're not specifically recommending /48s across the board for residential before specifically mentioning /56 assignments. The general push in the community is towards /48 across the board. Any comments on why the RFC backs away from that? Is this just throwing a bone to the masses complaining about waste? btw: hat tip to Peter Rocca for a kind of scale we're talking about for allocatable space. -- Hugo Quoting RFC6177 (successor to RFC3177): While the /48 recommendation does simplify address space management for end sites, it has also been widely criticized as being wasteful. For example, a large business (which may have thousands of employees) would, by default, receive the same amount of address space as a home user, who today typically has a single (or small number of) LAN and a small number of devices (dozens or less). While it seems likely that the size of a typical home network will grow over the next few decades, it is hard to argue that home sites will make use of 65K subnets within the foreseeable future. At the same time, it might be tempting to give home sites a single /64, since that is already significantly more address space compared with today's IPv4 practice. However, this precludes the expectation that even home sites will grow to support multiple subnets going forward. Hence, it is strongly intended that even home sites be given multiple subnets worth of space, by default. Hence, this document still recommends giving home sites significantly more than a single /64, but does not recommend that every home site be given a /48 either. A change in policy (such as above) would have a significant impact on address consumption projections and the expected longevity for IPv6. For example, changing the default assignment from a /48 to /56 (for the vast majority of end sites, e.g., home sites) would result in a savings of up to 8 bits, reducing the total projected address consumption by (up to) 8 bits or two orders of magnitude. (The exact amount of savings depends on the relative number of home users compared with the number of larger sites.) The above-mentioned goals of RFC 3177 can easily be met by giving home users a default assignment of less than /48, such as a /56. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: So, this is more of a 'opinion' / 'feel' (with all due respect) comment, and not something which has a (presently) compelling technical reasoning behind it ? Think of something like HIPnet https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grundemann-homenet-hipnet-00 http://www.cablelabs.com/the-future-of-home-networking-putting-the-hip-in-hipnet/ with multiple levels of home devices performing routing (prefix delegation), with multiple networks off of each. Even a /56 can easily end up being too little for multiple levels in a residence. If one believes in the IoT/IoE hype, everything will have a IPv6 address, and many of those devices might have multiple internal networks. So, yes, I assert based on a feel that a /48 is the right choice, because I am hoping to not make the same mistakes as with IPv4, and under estimate the growth of the network by the customers, resulting in all sorts of convoluted workarounds for not having enough addresses and options to do things right.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
This makes no sense. I have two /48s routed to my house. ..to my house. The idea that anyone is giving anything less than a 64 is unreasonable and will lead to an exponential growth in routing tables.. it's asinine and very short sighted. Sure, back in the day, I had a server, a couple desktops and a BRI and wow who would need more than an ipv4 /28--but let's face reality here--every thing, every switch, every night bulb, every door, every window, every skylight, every temperature sensor, every tv, every device that a friend brings over or even any device that I allow public access to.. every cat, every dog, every hamster is going to be microchipped and every single unit is going to need to be accessible Hell, I have two ips/one each for each of my two cat boxes that tell me current status, c'mon. My TiVos, my game consoles, my cable boxes, my two printers.. all have their own address. To think in an unframed context that you know what everyone everywhere will need is nothing short of naive and is everything elementarily assumptive of (ahem) The Internet of Things. The examples I gave are just for my house.. now multiply that times a small, medium, large, xl, enterprise or global entity and do the math These arguments and debates make me sad. I suppose it's my own fault for assuming that everyone in this ML is a forward thinker. -j On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. -- jamie rishaw // .com.arpa@j - reverse it. ish. ...let's consider this world like a family and care about each other... -Malala Yousafzai
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
(PS If I wake up in the morning and find out that someone has hacked my CatGenie litter boxes, I will hunt you down). NANOG: From Cat Poo to IPv6, We've Got It Covered On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:09 AM, jamie rishaw j...@arpa.com wrote: This makes no sense. I have two /48s routed to my house. ..to my house. The idea that anyone is giving anything less than a 64 is unreasonable and will lead to an exponential growth in routing tables.. it's asinine and very short sighted. Sure, back in the day, I had a server, a couple desktops and a BRI and wow who would need more than an ipv4 /28--but let's face reality here--every thing, every switch, every night bulb, every door, every window, every skylight, every temperature sensor, every tv, every device that a friend brings over or even any device that I allow public access to.. every cat, every dog, every hamster is going to be microchipped and every single unit is going to need to be accessible Hell, I have two ips/one each for each of my two cat boxes that tell me current status, c'mon. My TiVos, my game consoles, my cable boxes, my two printers.. all have their own address. To think in an unframed context that you know what everyone everywhere will need is nothing short of naive and is everything elementarily assumptive of (ahem) The Internet of Things. The examples I gave are just for my house.. now multiply that times a small, medium, large, xl, enterprise or global entity and do the math These arguments and debates make me sad. I suppose it's my own fault for assuming that everyone in this ML is a forward thinker. -j On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Erik Sundberg esundb...@nitelusa.com wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? Thanks Erik CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. -- jamie rishaw // .com.arpa@j - reverse it. ish. ...let's consider this world like a family and care about each other... -Malala Yousafzai -- jamie rishaw // .com.arpa@j - reverse it. ish. ...let's consider this world like a family and care about each other... -Malala Yousafzai
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:16 AM, jamie rishaw j...@arpa.com wrote: (PS If I wake up in the morning and find out that someone has hacked my CatGenie litter boxes, I will hunt you down). I am sure any hacking will result in taking a dump.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:09 AM, jamie rishaw j...@arpa.com wrote: . These arguments and debates make me sad. I suppose it's my own fault for assuming that everyone in this ML is a forward thinker. Get used to disappointment.
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Erik Sundberg wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me cringe at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for more IPv6 Space. /64 /60 /56 /48 Small Customer? Medium Customer? Large Customer? /56 per residential customer, /48 per corporate customer. If you're doing server hosting or alike, I'd do /56 per customer there as well, even if the first lan is only /64, because after a while you'll find out that they want to run virtual machines and want you to route /64:s to them instead of bridging. You definitely want to do this so you don't have to keep a huge ND table for all those IPs that your customer will be using in the future. I'd set 20 ND entry limit per LAN where you have equipment, and if the customer wants to use more concurrent addresses, then they have to accept that you route the networks to them. This is true for all types of customers. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
