contacts of
whom many of them didn't know the mask had changed in the first place.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 10:36 PM
To: Mike Hammett
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
On Apr 4
On 5 Apr 2015, at 04:29, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote:
I worked for a provider until recently that happened to get an IP assignment
at an IXP that was transitioning from /25 to /24. It was painful chasing
down peers to get them to change their netmask just so we could connect.
When we renumbered LONAP from /24 to /22, we had to change netblocks too
The LONAP change was the snoothest, speediest, no drama IXP addressing
change I've seen. All IXP should copy their process.
brandon
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Brendan Halley bren...@halley.net.au
To: Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 6:10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
IPv4 and IPv6 subnets
...@halley.net.au
To: Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 6:10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
IPv4 and IPv6 subnets are different. While a single IPv4 is taken to be a
single device, an IPv6 /64 is designed to be treated as an end user subnet
On 5/Apr/15 02:35, Mike Hammett wrote:
Okay, so I decided to look at what current IXes are doing.
It looks like AMS-IX, Equinix and Coresite as well as some of the smaller
IXes are all using /64s for their IX fabrics. Seems to be a slam dunk then as
how to handle the IPv6. We've got a
.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
To: Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 5:49:37 PM
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
On Sat
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 6:10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
IPv4 and IPv6 subnets are different. While a single IPv4 is taken to be a
single device, an IPv6 /64 is designed to be treated as an end user subnet.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177 section
On Apr 4, 2015, at 7:28 PM, Charles Gucker cguc...@onesc.net wrote:
I've been involved in IX renumbering efforts because exchange(s)
decided to use /25's instead of /24's.It's painful because
troubleshooting can be a little difficult as differing subnetmasks are
in play. If you have
On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:06:02 -0500, Mike Hammett said:
I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every IX
location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), even
though
we nqever expected anywhere near that many on a given fabric. Then okay, how
do
we
I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every IX
location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), even though
we never expected anywhere near that many on a given fabric. Then okay, how do
we do v6? We got a /48, so the thought was a /64 for each. That
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:06:02 -0500, Mike Hammett said:
I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every IX
location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), even
though
we nqever expected anywhere near that many on a given
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 18:02 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
That makes sense. I do recall now reading about having that 8 bit
separation between tiers of networks. However, in an IX everyone is
supposed to be able to talk to everyone else. Traditionally (AFAIK),
it's all been on the same subnet. At
13 matches
Mail list logo
