At 23:42 08/12/03, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm not sure if it needs to be a /32 or if it needs to be just a single
one, but I fully agree this should be documented very well and in a
central place. Buried somewhere on a RIR website isn't good enough. (Try
finding the the micro allocation
On 16-dec-03, at 12:06, jfcm wrote:
I suggest ISO should define an international trans network numbering
scheme that could be adopted as the IPv6.010 numbering plan, the same
way as the ccTLD list is the ISO 3166 2 letters list, and IDNA uses
unicodes etc.
The ISO is already in charge of NSAP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Joao Damas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BIG SNIP
No, no and definitely no!!!
It is one thing to put all IXP prefixes in the same block,
after all it
does not matter if they are not seen in the global Internet as, in
fact, they should not be
Hay,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:16:03PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is
leo vegoda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think it's clear that the wording in the IPv6 policy document
should be improved. It's a bit ambiguous at the moment. We're keen to
help improve the text.
An extra don't slipped in there.
Sorry,
--
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services
On 9 Dec, 2003, at 2:20, Jeroen Massar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[2 mails into one again]
Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
% the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
% anything smaller
Hi Bill,
Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Leo, this is the text we use for IX delegations. For CI uses, transit of
said prefix is a valid injection.
--
Exchange Point Announcement Statement
Our statement regarding the injection
On 10-dec-03, at 10:28, leo vegoda wrote:
http://lacnic.net/en/chapter-4.html
http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/ipv6-address-policy
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html
http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02
In fact, we
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8-dec-03, at 21:00, Paul Vixie wrote:
for example, bill says above that /35 routes
are being discouraged and that's probably true but by whom? and
where?
It is generally understood in the routing community that some kind of
prefix length
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10-dec-03, at 10:28, leo vegoda wrote:
http://lacnic.net/en/chapter-4.html
http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/ipv6-address-policy
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html
http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
% We assign small networks to IXPs.
%
% The document has the following in it reflecting this:
%
% CIDR block Smallest RIPE NCCSmallest RIPE NCC
% Allocation Assignment
% 2001:0600::/23 /35 /48
%
% Again, if people feel
Bill Manning;
% Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
% the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
% anything smaller than that.
This, if it happens, will be exactly opposed to
the IPv6 design goal, which was to discourage/prohibit
hardware/software
% (i personally don't think a /35 route with just one host in it makes
% much sense,
%
% Agree.
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
i think the important points for ietf@ to know about are (a) that this
is an open issue, (b)
% /35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
% 4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
% have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
%
% i think the important points for ietf@ to know about are (a) that this
% is an open
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Paul Vixie wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
i think the important points for ietf@
Bill Manning wrote:
% b) that it's generally agreed that all the RIR's ought
% to have the same rules regarding microallocations,
(b) on the other hand, has any number of
legal implications... collusion, monopolies, etc.
But this is a example where uniformity is desirable on technical
Bill Manning wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
overkill... :)
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not
be accepting anything smaller (/33,
% Bill Manning wrote:
% /35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
% 4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
% -might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
% overkill... :)
%
% Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:17:00 GMT, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why can't we
designate a block for microallocations, within which prefix length filters
aren't applied? The number of routes in the DFZ is the same either way;
is there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[This should go to v6ops@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) ]
Zefram wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a
On 8-dec-03, at 22:01, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not
be accepting anything smaller (/33, /34 etc)
So how are ISPs
[my apologies for burning so much bandwith]
On 8-dec-03, at 22:17, Zefram wrote:
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why can't we
designate a block for microallocations, within which prefix length
filters
aren't applied? The number of routes in the DFZ is the same either
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine if somebody
flubs and withdraws a /12 and announces a /12 worth of /28
That's why I suggested relaxing the filters only within a designated
block. So (for IPv4) the /12 worth of /28s gets ignored, but the
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have highlighted to APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with many possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed what range if they request IPv6?
Don't tell me they do not need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Gert Doering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain
At 11:21 AM +1200 12/09/2003, Franck Martin wrote:
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have highlighted to
APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with many
possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed what range if
Franck Martin wrote:
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have
highlighted to APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with
many possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed
what range if they request IPv6?
Don't tell me
% Root nameservers are a very different story of course...
%
% A /32 contains 65k /48's, so these IX blocks could provide for
% enough /48's for 65k IX's, thus unless that switch at the back
% of my desk, which connects 'neighbours' too is to be called an
% IX, because they have a linux router
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[2 mails into one again]
Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
% the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
% anything smaller than that.
This, if it happens,
% I, personally, see absolutely no problem into making it the 'critical infra'
% or 'root server' prefix, when it is documented correctly. EP.NET acts as
% a neutral body, with this way kinda of a sub-RIR though. All root-servers
% should be using the space then btw, not a few, but all of
On 7-dec-03, at 20:52, Paul Vixie wrote:
Just for fun, I cooked up a named.root file with only those IPv6
addresses
in it. This seems to confuse BIND such that its behavior becomes very
unpredictable.
hmmm. that configuration works fine for me here.
Ok... But does it also do anything useful?
33 matches
Mail list logo
