On 16/08/2009, at 1:29 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Start with: /32
Sparsely allocate 200 /56's
Total remaining space: in excess of /33. In fact, you haven't consumed
a single /48.
Expandability by altering the netmask: to /40
Largest allocation still possible: only /40
My suggestion was to
Nathan Ward wrote:
/48s seem flexible enough to me, but perhaps you want to use this
technique with /44s or /40s, or something.
Given my unusual network consisting of a dozen different telco's, I
actually assign each a /40 at a time, then /44-48 in each of their pops
depending on expected
Jon Lewis wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, David Freedman wrote:
Will keep it simple, this is what I (and I suspect many others) do
/128 - Loopback (what else?)
/126 - Router p2p
/112 - Router LAN shared segments (p2mp)
Why even go that big on LAN segments? i.e. If you have a LAN/VLAN where
William Herrin wrote:
The future looks a lot like the past but with more blinking lights.
Seriously, I'm pretty nuts when it comes to networking. My basement is
AS11875, multihomed with about 35mbps of bandwidth. If I can't imagine
how *I* would use more than 16 subnets then it's a safe bet
Why is is necessary insist that using bits in a fashion that doesn't
require that growth be predicated on requests for additional resources
be considered wasteful?
Don't we still need to subnet in a reasonably small fashion in order to contain
broadcasts, ill-behaved machines, and other
Ray Burkholder wrote:
Why is is necessary insist that using bits in a fashion that doesn't
require that growth be predicated on requests for additional resources
be considered wasteful?
Don't we still need to subnet in a reasonably small fashion in order to
contain broadcasts, ill-behaved
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Ray Burkholder wrote:
Don't we still need to subnet in a reasonably small fashion in order to
contain broadcasts, ill-behaved machines, and other regular discovery
crap that exists on any given segment? And if we have to segment in
such a fashion, the request and
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:40:34 -0400 (EDT)
Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, David Freedman wrote:
Will keep it simple, this is what I (and I suspect many others) do
/128 - Loopback (what else?)
/126 - Router p2p
/112 - Router LAN shared segments (p2mp)
Why even
Isn't it great that we never have to worry about IPv4 style addressing
issues (e.g. sizing the subnet, manually configuring the addresses, or
having an address configuration server attached to the segment to
manage addresses) when dealing with Ethernet in the last 27 years or
so? Why is that,
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:09:00 +0900
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Isn't it great that we never have to worry about IPv4 style addressing
issues (e.g. sizing the subnet, manually configuring the addresses, or
having an address configuration server attached to the segment to
manage
/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
-Original Message-
From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jer...@unfix.org]
Sent: Saturday, 15 August 2009 1:18 AM
To: Chris Gotstein
Cc: Nanog
Subject: Re: IPv6 Addressing Help
Chris Gotstein wrote:
We are a small ISP
I'm going to contradict you there. Classful addressing had a lot to
recommend it. The basic problem we ran in to was that there weren't
enough B's for everyone who needed more than a C and there weren't
enough A's period. So we started handing out groups of disaggregate
C's and that path led
On 15/08/2009, at 4:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm going to contradict you there. Classful addressing had a lot to
recommend it. The basic problem we ran in to was that there weren't
enough B's for everyone who needed more than a C and there weren't
enough A's period. So we started handing out
Hi,
On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 00:38 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
With IPv6 we have more than enough addresses to give a /56 to
everybody who needs more than a /60 and a /48 to everybody who needs
more than a /56.
I don't think this is a good assumption to make. Just because the
namespace
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Randy Bushra...@psg.com wrote:
I'm going to contradict you there. Classful addressing had a lot to
recommend it. The basic problem we ran in to was that there weren't
enough B's for everyone who needed more than a C and there weren't
enough A's period. So we
We are a small ISP that is in the process of setting up IPv6 on our
network. We already have the ARIN allocation and i have a couple
routers and servers running dual stack. Wondering if someone out there
would be willing to give me a few pointers on setting up my addressing
scheme? I've
Chris Gotstein wrote:
We are a small ISP that is in the process of setting up IPv6 on our
network. We already have the ARIN allocation and i have a couple
routers and servers running dual stack. Wondering if someone out there
would be willing to give me a few pointers on setting up my
I think we had to let ARIN know the time frame of deploying IPv6 and how
many customers we expected to put on in the first couple years. They
did not ask for an addressing scheme.
Reading over the RFC's and other IPv6 resources, we have decided to hand
out /56's to small/home/SOHO customers
On Aug 14, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Chris Gotstein wrote:
I'm just not able to wrap my brain around the subnetting that needs
to be done on the router.
One of the things which has struck me as being fairly insane about
current recommended 'best practices' for IPv6 addressing is the
practice
Chris Gotstein wrote:
I think we had to let ARIN know the time frame of deploying IPv6 and how
many customers we expected to put on in the first couple years. They
did not ask for an addressing scheme.
Reading over the RFC's and other IPv6 resources, we have decided to hand
out /56's to
Sounds like an excellent topic for a tutorial/talk/panel at the next NANOG.
--celeste.
- Original Message -
From: Chris Gotstein ch...@uplogon.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:04 am
Subject: IPv6 Addressing Help
To: Nanog nanog@nanog.org
We are a small ISP that is in the process
On Aug 14, 2009, at 8:49 AM, David Freedman wrote:
Chris Gotstein wrote:
I think we had to let ARIN know the time frame of deploying IPv6
and how
many customers we expected to put on in the first couple years. They
did not ask for an addressing scheme.
Reading over the RFC's and other
: Chris Gotstein ch...@uplogon.com
Date: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:04 am
Subject: IPv6 Addressing Help
To: Nanog nanog@nanog.org
We are a small ISP that is in the process of setting up IPv6 on our
network. We already have the ARIN allocation and i have a couple
routers and servers running
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, David Freedman wrote:
Will keep it simple, this is what I (and I suspect many others) do
/128 - Loopback (what else?)
/126 - Router p2p
/112 - Router LAN shared segments (p2mp)
Why even go that big on LAN segments? i.e. If you have a LAN/VLAN where
you have say 20
Randy Bush wrote:
/126 - Router p2p
/127, see
MATSUZAKI Yoshinobu gave a talk describing the ping pong attack on /127
at a ripe or apricot or both. both web sites are absolutely horrid at
letting one find talks (see nanog for an example of good).
randy
Here's a link to the talk
-Original Message-
From: Roland Dobbins [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
On Aug 14, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Chris Gotstein wrote:
I'm just not able to wrap my brain around the subnetting that needs to
be done on the router.
One of the things which has struck me as being fairly insane about current
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Chris Gotsteinch...@uplogon.com wrote:
We are a small ISP that is in the process of setting up IPv6 on our network.
We already have the ARIN allocation and i have a couple routers and servers
running dual stack. Wondering if someone out there would be willing
TJ wrote:
[..]
A great counter-point to this is that if you do use /64s (or for that matter
- anything shorter than the currently-not-recommended /127s, AFAIK), you
should apply ACLs to them to prevent ping-pong.
One should be doing uRPF at minimum on all links anyway. BCP84 ;)
If the user
William Herrin wrote:
[..]
I'm not aware of any way of dynamically assigning an IPv6 subnet to a
customer that's as well automated as IPv4 /32 dynamic assignment to a
DSL router with an RFC1918 NATed interior, but that may just be my
ignorance since I haven't needed to research it.
DHCP-PD
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:26 PM, trej...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, RIPE allocated a /19 to France Telecom. Doesn't take
more than a few hundred thousand allocations like that one
to wipe out the IPv6 address space.
Do we expect a few hundred thousand places that need 2^29
(500M, give or
Hi,
Chris Gotstein schrieb:
We are a small ISP that is in the process of setting up IPv6 on our
network. We already have the ARIN allocation and i have a couple routers
and servers running dual stack. Wondering if someone out there would be
willing to give me a few pointers on setting up my
In message 4a85878a.2000...@uk.clara.net, David Freedman writes:
Chris Gotstein wrote:
I think we had to let ARIN know the time frame of deploying IPv6 and how
many customers we expected to put on in the first couple years. They
did not ask for an addressing scheme.
Reading over
Cool. So we'll have $100 CPE which uses it in a relatively idiot-proof
manner sometime between now and eternity.
More now than eternity -
To: UKNOF uk...@lists.uknof.org.uk
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:26:44 +0100
Marco Hogewoning of Dutch ISP XS4ALL talks about the roll out of IPv6
in
: IPv6 Addressing Help
In message 4a85878a.2000...@uk.clara.net, David Freedman writes:
Chris Gotstein wrote:
I think we had to let ARIN know the time frame of deploying IPv6 and how
many customers we expected to put on in the first couple years. They
did not ask for an addressing
On 15/08/2009, at 1:03 AM, Chris Gotstein wrote:
We are a small ISP that is in the process of setting up IPv6 on our
network. We already have the ARIN allocation and i have a couple
routers and servers running dual stack. Wondering if someone out
there would be willing to give me a few
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Nathan Wardna...@daork.net wrote:
you are reinventing
classful addressing, and when one POP or city grows too large, you have to
make exceptions to your rules.
Nathan,
I'm going to contradict you there. Classful addressing had a lot to
recommend it. The basic
36 matches
Mail list logo
