I'm looking at building a large network with Ipv6 in the Los
Angeles metro area, to serve a number of small businesses via
a large scale wireless network. Essentially a large scale
private WAN, with globally routable addresses (for a
VoIP/IPTV roll out later) So I'm not exactly a
On 21 Aug 2008, at 09:09, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 20 aug 2008, at 21:33, Crist Clark wrote:
No, that's my point. On a true point-to-point link, there is
only one other address on the link. That's what point-to-point
means.
For example, on the IPv4 ends gif(4) tunnel in my previous
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
Well, on reading it, it's more an IPv6: It's great -- ask for
it by name! piece.
This article reminded me that I really needed to stop relying on a
tunnel over
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
This article reminded me that I really needed to stop relying on a
tunnel over my backup DSL line for IPv6 and spend the time to get my
On 20 aug 2008, at 21:33, Crist Clark wrote:
No, that's my point. On a true point-to-point link, there is
only one other address on the link. That's what point-to-point
means.
For example, on the IPv4 ends gif(4) tunnel in my previous message,
gif0:
Randy Bush wrote:
and consider matsuzaki-san's dos vulnerability on a /64 p2p link. the
prudent operational advice today is to use a /127.
randy
Can you provide some more information on this vulnerability? My
google-fu appears to be weak.
Sam
A very old one:)
http://atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg00163.html
Miya
-Original Message-
From: Sam Stickland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:32 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
I don't operate an ISP network (not anymore, anyway...). My
customers are departments within my organization, so a /64
per department/VLAN is more sane/reasonable for my environment.
Some time ago there was a discussion on IPv6 addressing plans
spread out over a couple of days. I
On 19 aug 2008, at 22:29, Kevin Loch wrote:
I thought there was an issue with duplicate address detection with /
127
(RFC3627)?
Don't know about that, but the all-zeroes address is supposed to be
the all-routers anycast address. Cisco doesn't implement this, so /127
works on those, but
On 20 aug 2008, at 3:31, Randy Bush wrote:
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at
apops:
http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
He (she?) says packets will ping-pong across the link if they are
addressed to an address on the p2p subnet
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next
week at apops:
To summarize, using /64 on a link opens the door to a DOS
problem that we need to pressure the vendors to fix.
Obviously, this matters more to people who are running
full-blown production IPv6 networks right now than
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next
week at apops:
To summarize, using /64 on a link opens the door to a DOS
problem that we need to pressure the vendors to fix.
How is this not an obvious 'duh' kind of situation that just depends on
doing
On 8/20/2008 at 1:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 20 aug 2008, at 3:31, Randy Bush wrote:
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at
apops:
http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
He (she?) says packets will
On 20 aug 2008, at 20:34, Crist Clark wrote:
On a true P-to-P link, there is no netmask, no? A netmask is a
concept that applies to broadcast media, like Ethernet. Even if
you only have two hosts on an Ethernet link, it's not really
P-to-P in the strict sense.
An interface needs a prefix
On 8/20/2008 at 11:57 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 20 aug 2008, at 20:34, Crist Clark wrote:
On a true P-to-P link, there is no netmask, no? A netmask is a
concept that applies to broadcast media, like Ethernet. Even if
you only have two hosts on an Ethernet link,
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes. If ARIN will give you a /48 for every
customer, then why be miserly with
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes. If ARIN will give you a /48
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes.
On 20/08/2008, at 5:25 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if
Michael Thomas wrote:
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
On 8/19/08 1:36 PM, Nathan Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
64 bits is not a magical boundary.
112 bits is widely recommended for linknets, for example.
64 bits is common, because of EUI-64 and friends. That's it.
There is nothing, anywhere, that says that the first 64 bits is for
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
some of us remember when we thought similarly for /24s for p2p
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Michael Thomas wrote:
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I don't operate an ISP network (not anymore, anyway...). My customers
are departments within my organization, so a /64 per department/VLAN
is more sane/reasonable for my environment.
Uh, the lower 64 bits of an IP6
-Original Message-
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes.
On 8/19/08 1:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:30:38 -0400
From: Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/19/08 1:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of
Randy Bush wrote:
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
some of us remember when we thought similarly
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at apops:
http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
randy
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
Well, on reading it, it's more an IPv6: It's great -- ask for
it by name! piece.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
Well, on reading it, it's more an IPv6: It's great -- ask
for it by name! piece.
IPv6 gives me brain ache. I hear I'm not alone in that. I'd
v6 tomorrow if I didn't have to think
james wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
Well, on reading it, it's more an IPv6: It's great -- ask
for it by name! piece.
IPv6 gives me brain ache. I hear I'm not alone in that. I'd
v6 tomorrow if I didn't have
-Original Message-
From: Deepak Jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:19 PM
To: james
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
james wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they
route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if its
a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are just
implementing it as IPv4 with a
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they
route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if its
a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are just
implementing it as IPv4 with a
-Original Message-
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:18 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
operational content: Is anyone significantly
On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I
like wasting addresses :)
That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers
generally have
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like
wasting addresses :)
That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
For instance, hosting
On 18 aug 2008, at 23:28, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space. My
earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of
mainly
point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses.
In that case,
-Original Message-
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:29 PM
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 aug 2008
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they
route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if
its a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are
just
40 matches
Mail list logo
