We developed our own PHP / MySQL system that holds all the records
before writing out zonefiles and updates to BIND. We've been using it
for several years and it works well :)
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
I'm a long time BIND user and recent convert to PowerDNS.
I considered BIND-DLZ briefly but found that I wasn't excited about the DB
retro-fit on a piece of software that was previously very much meant to live
in the world of flat files.
My initial intent was to try PowerDNS first and then give
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:29:36 -0500, Skeeve Stevens ske...@skeeve.org
wrote:
I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote
it?
I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for
over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a number of
Steven Crandell wrote:
I'm a long time BIND user and recent convert to PowerDNS.
I considered BIND-DLZ briefly but found that I wasn't excited about the DB
retro-fit on a piece of software that was previously very much meant to live
in the world of flat files.
My initial intent was to try
--On onsdag, onsdag 4 feb 2009 17.44.20 -0500 Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:29:36 -0500, Skeeve Stevens ske...@skeeve.org
wrote:
I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote
it?
I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.netwrote:
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used
one
trillion IP addresses.
Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536
networks
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.netwrote:
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one
trillion IP addresses.
Of course they will! A /48 is only the
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
each cable modem a /64?
That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm not an
IPv4-style utilization ratios do make some sense under IPv6, but not
at the
address level - only at the network level.
First, it was (mostly) a joke.
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
each cable modem a /64?
At the least. Some would say a /56 is
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
each cable modem a /64?
That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
discussion about it on the
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And before anyone says there are 281474976710656 /48s!, just
remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
bet when someone said four-point-two BILLION addresses, someone else
said no $...@#%'ing way we will EVER use THAT many
Let's face
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:56:44 -0800, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM,
Anthony Roberts na...@arbitraryconstant.com wrote:
It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address
space
to play with (eg 10/8), they start doing things like using bits
I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for
over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a number of universities
and supercomputing facilities number nodes out of 1/8 -- however, those
systems are never supposed to see the internet anyway, so they could
In message 498a3514.1050...@internode.com.au, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And before anyone says there are 281474976710656 /48s!, just
remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
bet when someone said four-point-two BILLION
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
Anthony Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing
Mark Andrews wrote:
Assign the prefixes using PD and use aggregate routes out side of the pop.
IPv6 nodes are designed to be renumbered. Use the technology. Stop thinking
IPv4 and start thinking IPv6. IPv6 is not just IPv4 with bigger addresses.
Currently with v4 I have one
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:41:01 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
And ARP tables are propogated around networks? No, they're local to a
router.
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote:
What I was hoping for (even though I'm testing something that I know
won't work) is that I can break something so I could push v4 traffic
over a v6-only core.
Is there _any_ way to do this (other than NAT/tunnel etc)?
If
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being clear:
As I posted just before in reply to MarkA - I'm
In message 498a3ca5.6060...@internode.com.au, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems. A /64 isn't
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being clear:
As I posted
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 498a3ca5.6060...@internode.com.au, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems.
Clarification here:
1/8 was never on the EDS backbone. Was only used locally in one site,
as far as I can determine.
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8
for
over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL Cable modem,
then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
v4 just gets a
On 5/02/2009, at 2:28 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise
all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it
is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being
On 5/02/2009, at 2:35 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they
think
if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a
firewall.
A *lot* of these problems we face are conceptual rather than
technological.
For more, refer
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Well, it is static, but like most static IP services offerd by an ISP,
if you leave you can't take your addresses with you. Even with DSL from
ATT if you move locations you get a different subnet.
The issue is multiple POPs in a geographic region where customers could
In message 498a40c1.8060...@internode.com.au, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
-- m...@internode.com.au wrote:
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft m...@internode.com.au
Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of PD?
If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter drop in a
park. Especially interested in CPE etc.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.netwrote:
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used
one trillion IP addresses.
Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536 networks
(each network being a /64). Presuming that ISPs
Some devices will refuse to work if you subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes,
poorly designed, etc.)
Actually, no - not poorly designed. The spec says it must be a /64 (excluding
those starting with 000 binary) so that is what devices (rightfully) expect.
Ref:
In message f1dedf9c0902041735x4a9cb6f9nc5b5bbf1201a2...@mail.gmail.com, Scott
Howard writes:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
IP address. If we really are handing out a /64
On 5/02/2009, at 2:35 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
What happens when a customer wants to run multiple networks is
something I
haven't seen answered yet - with NAT it's easy, but as I said, NAT is
apparently evil...
You give them more than a /64.
RFC4291 says that it should be a /48, but people
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems.
Perhaps, time moves ever forward.
A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6). Setting
the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own statically
is
insane and will blow out provider's
My FEAR is that people (customers) are going to start assuming that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have to
implement that.
Then work with them to break them of this dis-illusion.
I'm
TJ wrote:
No, we should hand each home a /56 (or perhaps a /48, for the purists out
there) - allowing for multiple segments (aka subnet, aka links, etc.).
If there are, say, 250-500 million broadband services in the world
(probably more) then, if every ISP followed best practise for IPv6
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew
Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people (customers) are going to start assuming that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means that I have a problem with routing table size
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:35:15 -0500, James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
Clarification here:
1/8 was never on the EDS backbone. Was only used locally in one site,
as far as I can determine.
They might have done that for other customers as well. (to avoid 10/8
collisions.)
TJ wrote:
However, many do not have DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not capable.
Also - does DHCPv6 currently have an option for prefix length? Just asking.
I'm under no allusion that a /64 is going to be optional - it's really
too late which is sad. I think people have just latched
Mark Andrews wrote:
All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a
different set of addresses at that point. You should plan
Has anyone done some analysis of what this might look like? Especially
with growth etc.
Sure, probably lots of people lots of times.
Off the top of my head, using some current/common allocations sizes:
Current Global Unicast space -- 2000::/3
An average RIR -- /12
an
On 5/02/2009, at 3:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
TJ wrote:
No, we should hand each home a /56 (or perhaps a /48, for the
purists out
there) - allowing for multiple segments (aka subnet, aka links,
etc.).
If there are, say, 250-500 million broadband services in the world
(probably
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew
Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people (customers) are going to start assuming that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means that I have a problem
All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a
different set of addresses at that point. You should plan
accordingly.
Exactly the problem,
In message 20090205030522.13d152b2...@mx5.roble.com, Roger Marquis writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a
Once upon a time, Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com said:
* NAT advantage #5: it does not require replacement security measures to
protect against netscans, portscans, broadcasts (particularly microsoft
netbios), and other malicious inbound traffic.
Since NAT == stateful firewall with packet
Hello Matthew , See way below ...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Scott Howard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.auwrote:
but my point was
Hi James,
I don't think anyone really has done it large scale properly.
I've had basically nothing from anyone.
Given my knowledge of where most large BRAS/Cable vendors are upto - I
don't think anyone could have. (Cisco won't have high end v6 pppoe
support until late this year!).
Hmm,
Apologies for that - wasn't meant to goto the list. Was a bit frank.
MMC
On 05/02/2009, at 2:59 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Hi James,
I don't think anyone really has done it large scale properly.
I've had basically nothing from anyone.
Given my knowledge of where most large
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they think
if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a firewall.
NAT provides some security, often enough to make a firewall unnecessary.
It all depends on what's inside the edge device. But
I am told that juniper have just released their E series code to do
hitless failover and ipv6cp at the same time.
If you are not running hitless it has been working for some time.
Apologies if this message is brief, it is sent from my cellphone.
On 5/02/2009, at 17:29, Matthew Moyle-Croft
Hi folks,
Does anyone know any kind of super-secret back door number for Verizon
FIOS tech support for people-with-a-clue? I can hear the drool
hitting the keyboard on the other end of the line and the confusion in
the voice of the support rep when I try to get help with turning up a
business
Apologies if this message is brief, it is sent from my cellphone.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nathan Ward
On 5/02/2009, at 16:58, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Since NAT == stateful firewall with packet mangling, it would be much
easier to drop the packet mangling and just use a
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20090205030522.13d152b2...@mx5.roble.com, Roger Marquis
writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may
--On onsdag, onsdag 4 feb 2009 19.02.56 -0500 Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.net wrote:
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand each
cable modem a /64?
Telia got their /20 based on calculations where they give every customer a
/48. Every apartment in every
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org wrote:
We already know some will need more than a /48. /48 was
only ever described as meeting the requirements of *most*
business and consumers.
so.. what businesses need is not actually 'more than one
On 4-Feb-2009, at 19:05, Roger Marquis wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a
different set of
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
I see people predicting that giving everybody a /56 is insane and will
blow out routing tables. I don't quite understand that; at the regional
ISP with which I am most familiar 40,000 or so internal/customer routes
in BGP, and I have not noticed anything
On 4-Feb-2009, at 22:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
I see people predicting that giving everybody a /56 is insane and
will blow out routing tables. I don't quite understand that; at the
regional ISP with which I am most familiar 40,000 or so internal/
60 matches
Mail list logo
