On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Brian Johnson wrote:
What would be wrong with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.
IPv6 CPE's may be designed to get one subnet per physical media via
DHCPv6-PD, so for example
Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com writes:
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
would be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4
Internet^2 for a single device!
Most people will have more than one device. And
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would
be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! Thatâs the IPv4 Internet^2
for a single device!
Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?
The fact that you could use
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:18:23PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com writes:
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
would be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That?s the IPv4
Internet^2 for a
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote:
What would be wrong with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.
It's a question of convenience... your customers', but more
importantly yours. Every time
On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
What would be wrong with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.
They probably don't -- but some appliance they buy might. Maybe some
home family-oriented box will put the
Am I the only one that finds this problematic?
No, but most of the people who find this problematic haven't done
any looking into the matter.
I mean, the whole point
of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again
have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not
[here we go again]
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:37:49 -0400, William Herrin
herrin-na...@dirtside.com wrote:
Some clever guy figured out that ... why not
add an extra 64 bits for that very convenient improvement? This is
called stateless autoconfiguration.
Except that clever guy was in fact an
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:34:51AM -0700, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this problematic? I mean, the whole point
of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again
have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not saying that this puts
us anywhere
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Whenever you declare something to be inexhasutable all you do is
increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that
there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource.
This is where I think there is a major
On 05/10/09 16:20 -0500, Chris Owen wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Whenever you declare something to be inexhasutable all you do is
increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that
there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource.
This
considered top posting to irritate a few folks, decided not to.
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:20:44PM -0500, Chris Owen wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Whenever you declare something to be inexhasutable all you do is
increase demand. Eventually you reach a point
The estimated mass of our galaxy is around 6x10^42Kg. The mass of earth is a
little less than 6x10^24Kg.
2^128 is around 3.4x10^38.
So in a flat address space we have about one IPV6 address for every 20,000Kg
in the galaxy or for every 20 picograms in the earth...
One would hope it would last
for a single device!
Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?
- Brian
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:38 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
Brian Johnson wrote:
From what I can
This is where I think there is a major disconnect on IPv6. The size of
the pool is just so large that people just can't wrap their heads around it.
Why bother wrapping your head around it? Do you count how many computers are
in your house? Did you remember to count the CPU inside the PC
well - if we are presuming a -FLAT- space, then IPv4 will last
a great deal longer than 2011. and tell your vendors to pump up
the CAM/ARP table sizes ... and bring back the ARP storms of the
1980s. (who owns the vitalink codes base anyway?)
--bill
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:47:12PM
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:13:37 CDT, Dan White said:
a publicly routeable stateless auto configured address is no less
secure than a publicly routeable address assigned by DHCP. Security is, and
should be, handled by other means.
The problem is user tracking and privacy.
RFC4941's problem
? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.
- Brian
-Original Message-
From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
William
Herrin
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:58 AM
To: Brian Johnson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
On Mon, Oct 5
On 05/10/09 18:35 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:13:37 CDT, Dan White said:
a publicly routeable stateless auto configured address is no less
secure than a publicly routeable address assigned by DHCP. Security is, and
should be, handled by other means.
The
On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:18:23PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com writes:
So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band
connection
would be given 2^64 addresses?
I realize that this is future
On 10/05/2009 04:41 PM, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
as a residential customer, I will be provided a /64, which means each
individual on Earth
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the finite address space? 256 bits? 1024 bits?
I just don't get it. It's not like people get stressed out about
running
out of name space in English which is probably more
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
A lesson learned is that thinking about
and waste.
Food for thought...
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:47:12 -0400
From: Dorn Hetzel dhet...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
To: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID:
7db2dcf90910051447r5bd7e42fja0b750dceb8d...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4.
That's probably because IPv4 was a technology where the expected host
address allocation strategy was (last+1) and IPv6 is a technology where
the default
On 10/05/2009 04:59 PM, David Andersen wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the finite address space? 256 bits? 1024 bits?
I just don't get it. It's not like people get stressed out about running
out of
I've been trying to stay out of this discussion because it is
pointless, however as I can't help picking at scratching mosquito
bites either...
On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the finite address space?
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
A lesson learned is that thinking
Owen,
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If people start getting /32s because some ISPs are refusing to
route /48s, then,
the RIRs are not doing their stewardship job correctly and we should
resolve
that issue.
Since when do RIRs, good stewards or not, control routing policy
The fallacy here is the idea that IPv6 has a
128-bit namespace. It does not. It has
two 64 bit namespaces, where one is expected to be globally unique and flat,
While the other is hierarchical.
IPv6 has a lot more room than v4 does, but it is worth noting
Than in v4, a customer would
On 10/05/2009 05:09 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:20 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Um. How many /32s are their in IPv4? How many /32s are their in
IPv6?
Of course, that should be there in both cases. Wow.
Regards,
-drc
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
I'm sorry, but seeing a good fraction of my local IX simply containing
a few ISP's deaggregated view of their local internal networks versus
a sensible allocation policy makes me cry. IPv6 may just make this
worse. IPv6 certainly won't make it
Just for grins, put a unique IPv6 address in every active RFID
tag. ... and remember that there are RFID printers that can
put 18 tags on a single A4 sheet. Numbers will become disposible,
like starbucks coffee cups and MCD's bigmac containers.
--bill
Ignoring the
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:13:37 CDT, Dan White said:
a publicly routeable stateless auto configured address is no less
secure than a publicly routeable address assigned by DHCP. Security
is, and should be, handled by other means.
The problem is user tracking and privacy.
RFC4941's problem
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't
see any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4.
Consider
A lesson learned is that thinking about address allocation is
something you do not want to spend too many precious seconds of your life
on.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4.
Robert,
I would suggest that some of the lessons we learned are faulty.
Maladaptive. CIDR
So now Verizon is in open revolt against ARIN. They positively refuse
to carry /48's from legitimately multihomed users. Eff 'em. Perhaps
Verizon would sooner see IPv6 go down in flames than see their TCAMs
fill up again. Who knows their reasoning?
Agree or disagree, it is indeed food for
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:55:35 -0400, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
All of the items in the above list are true of DHCP. ...
In an IPv4 world (which is where DHCP lives), it's much MUCH harder to
track assignments -- I don't share my DHCP logs with anyone, nor does
anyone send theirs to
Tim Durack wrote:
Thing is, I'm an end user site. I need more that a /48, but probably
less than a /32. Seeing as how we have an AS and PI, PA isn't going to
cut it. What am I supposed to do? ARIN suggested creative subnetting.
We pushed back and got a /41. If IPv6 doesn't scratch an itch,
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:40:28 EDT, TJ said:
Isn't this really a security by obscurity argument?
No - security through obscurity is security measures that only seem to work
because you hope the attacker doesn't know how they are implemented. In
this case, making sure somebody else can't
joel jaeggli wrote:
Tim Durack wrote:
Thing is, I'm an end user site. I need more that a /48, but probably
less than a /32. Seeing as how we have an AS and PI, PA isn't going to
cut it. What am I supposed to do? ARIN suggested creative subnetting.
We pushed back and got a /41. If IPv6
101 - 142 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
