-Original Message-
From: Chris Boyd [mailto:cb...@gizmopartners.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 3:08 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:45 PM, George Bonser wrote:
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did
On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries.
Yes (two NANOG messages attached from earlier this month)
/John
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Curran jcur...@arin.net
Date: October 18, 2010 2:55:49 PM EDT
To: David
Quick comment:
IGP bloat != BGP bloat. Your customers cannot announce the space you gave
them externally - unless ~/32s, i.e. forced aggregation.
Also, your customers shouldn't need to come back for more very often and
ideally you have some reservations for them a well :).
/TJ
PS - apologies
On 2010-10-26 15:57, Jack Bates wrote:
[..]
Am I missing something, or is this minimalist approach going to cause
issues in BGP the same as v4 did?
You are missing the point of making a proper plan which can justify
address space for your business for the next years.
If done properly, you have
On 10/26/2010 9:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You are missing the point of making a proper plan which can justify
address space for your business for the next years.
According to ARIN, initial allocations due NOT allot for growth, only
for the existing infrastructure.
If done properly, you
On 10/26/2010 9:06 AM, TJ wrote:
Quick comment:
IGP bloat != BGP bloat. Your customers cannot announce the space you
gave them externally - unless ~/32s, i.e. forced aggregation.
Still waiting on ARIN to get back to my argument that I am allowed to
assign /32s to my subtending ISPs who are
* Jack Bates:
So, the best that I can tell (still not through debating with RIR),
the IPv6 routing table will see lots of bloat. Here's my reasoning so
far:
1) RIR (ARIN in this case, don't know other RIR interpretations) only
does initial assignments to barely cover the minimum. If you
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:58 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
So, the best that I can tell (still not through debating with RIR), the
IPv6 routing table will see lots of bloat
important.
Regards,
Jordi
From: Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net
Reply-To: alh-i...@tndh.net
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:02:00 -0700
To: 'Jack Bates' jba...@brightok.net, nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
You didn't miss anything, past ARIN practice has been
On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:06 AM, TJ wrote:
Quick comment:
IGP bloat != BGP bloat. Your customers cannot announce the space you gave
them externally - unless ~/32s, i.e. forced aggregation.
He's talking about the bloat that comes from ISPs getting slow-started and then
only being able to
dusty old routers with ram problems...
solution there: re-think the way you do your routing and compare the price
of ram versus cpu cycles. (as well as having custom hardware developed to
do it on, intel simply does not offer enough address bus lines to maintain
bigass tables and address them
On 26/10/2010 17:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
He's talking about the bloat that comes from ISPs getting slow-started and then
only being able to increase their network in increments of 2x each time, so,
effectively ISP gets:
[...]
Probably not quite as bad as IPv4, but, potentially close.
In
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes it
possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it may
seem.
Except, if you are given bare minimums, and you are assigning out to
subtending ISPs bare
On 26/10/2010 18:19, Jack Bates wrote:
My minimum /30 allocation per ARIN met a /27 in HD-Ratio thresholds. To not
be given the threshold space means no reservations for subtending ISPs, no
room for subtending ISPs to grow, and multiple assignments. If ARIN only
does /29 boundaries, I'll also be
I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries.
My personal opinion is that it should be even more sparse, and that allocations
should be done on nibble boundaries. Any reasonably-sized ISP should get at
least a /28.
I deal with many small-ish ISPs, and most are 5,000-10,000
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it
may
seem.
Except, if you are given bare minimums, and you are
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 21:19, Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 21:19, Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate
On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
it
possible to aggregate subsequent
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Randy Carpenter
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
On 10/26/2010 1:01 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Wait... If you are issuing space
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 14:20, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
On 10/26/2010 1:01 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Wait... If you are issuing space to ISPs that are multihomed, they
should be getting their
2. RIPE has always issued PI space to LIRs (ISPs are by
definition LIRs).
ISPs are not per-se LIRs.
LIRs register IP space on behalf of customers
customers that do not make delegations themselves (i'm quite sure you
don't put each and every one of your access customers into
HAHA that would totally make the MAFIAA's day...
entering all your dialup and adsl customers into whois as they would be
end users :P quite sure the EU would not agree on that definition of
what constitutes an end-user, and therefore, its quite possible to provide
access services on PI space
Shared hosting ISPs also do not make subdelegations and generally
don't
even uses the ips on a one-specific-customer-per-ip basis.
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did they get it without going to an RIR and
paying a fee?
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, George Bonser wrote:
To: Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net
Shared hosting ISPs also do not make subdelegations and generally
don't
even uses the ips on a one-specific-customer-per-ip basis.
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did they
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 14:45, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
Shared hosting ISPs also do not make subdelegations and generally
don't
even uses the ips on a one-specific-customer-per-ip basis.
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did they get it
eh don't know about you americans but here in europe you just go to a LIR
and ask them to register an AS for you.
there are ofcourse maintenance fees nowadays.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, George Bonser wrote:
Shared hosting ISPs also do not make subdelegations and generally
don't
even uses the
We also have various customers that only obtain LIR registration services
and have no network links whatsoever with us (so just PI and/or AS
registration, no transit or whatever)
which -is- what a LIR does.. operating a network has nothing to do with
being a LIR per-se.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010,
On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:45 PM, George Bonser wrote:
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
If they have an ASN, how did they get it without going to an RIR and
paying a fee?
I beleive Jack said that they have redundant connections to his network. I
took that to mean that they did not
On 10/26/2010 2:26 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
This is actually not that uncommon. You see it a lot in the smaller
level. I had several such clients at my last job. They want to be
multi-homed for redundancy, but either don't have enough space, or
don't want to pay full time people, so they use a
what's the problem anyway
with 32bit ASN's there should be enough AS namespace to give everyone that
wants to multihome their ipv6/ipv4 PI their own AS number...
should pretty much be the de-facto standard (unless ofcourse you want to
tie your customers to your internet-provider-activities
/2010 3:20 PM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Randy Carpenter
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
On 10/26/2010 1:01 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Wait
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:45:45PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
But how do they multihome without an ASN?
Well, get space from one of your providers, and an LOA
to get the other to announce the deaggregate for you.
Or they've got legacy space, and never had an AS; just
get their
From: Chris Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:08 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
I beleive Jack said that they have redundant connections to his
network. I took that to mean that they did not multihome to different
AS.
Ok, that is where my mental
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:19:30 -0500
Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes it
possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it may
seem.
Except, if you
, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Randy Carpenter
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
On 10/26/2010 1:01 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Wait
, 2010 6:31:18 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries.
My personal opinion is that it should be even more sparse, and that allocations
should be done on nibble boundaries. Any reasonably-sized ISP should get at
least
current IPv4 allocation/usage. This would fix the
problem?
- Original Message -
From: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net
To: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 6:31:18 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
I think ARIN
, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 10:48:13 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
It would be nice as a start, but does not really take into consideration future
expansion needs.
I would think that you could draw some parallels, though.
Something like
/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost
- Original Message -
From: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net
To: Franck Martin fra...@genius.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 10:48:13 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
To: Franck Martin fra...@genius.com
Cc: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net, nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 11:48:58 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
It's very interesting to me that wee
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 05:48:13PM -0400, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Someone who Randy didn't attribute wrote:
I think APNIC has a policy that defines the minimum IPv6 allocation
based on your current IPv4 allocation/usage. This would fix the
problem?
It would be nice as a start, but does not
So, the best that I can tell (still not through debating with RIR), the
IPv6 routing table will see lots of bloat.
96 more bits, no magic
44 matches
Mail list logo
