RE: IPv6 Ignorance

essage- > From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:17 PM > To: John R. Levine; George Herbert > Cc: Tomas L. Byrnes; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance > > My customer the Dark Matter local galaxy group beg to disag

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sat, 2012-09-29 at 16:53 +1000, Jason Leschnik wrote: > To address everything in the Universe wouldn't you then get stuck in > some kinda of loop of having to address the matter that is used by the > addresses... i.e. to address everything in the Universe you need more > matter than the Universe

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

Fortunately, until we find it, it doesn't need addresses. > > > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] > >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM > >>> To: John Levine > >>&g

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

gt; -Original Message- >>> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] >>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM >>> To: John Levine >>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >>> Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance >>> >>>> In technology, not muc

RE: IPv6 Ignorance

Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM To: John Levine Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign IP addresses to objects

RE: IPv6 Ignorance

, 2012 8:30 PM > To: John Levine > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance > > > In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of > > arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign > > IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. > > we assign them /64s

Re: Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

, 24 Sep 2012 22:42:46 +0100 >From: Mike Jones >To: Adrian Bool >Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" >Subject: Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance) >Message-ID: > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >On 24 September 2012 21:11, Adrian Bool wr

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

* Adrian Bool > > On 24 Sep 2012, at 22:42, Mike Jones wrote: > >> While you could do something similar without the encapsulation >> this would require that every router on your network support >> routing on port numbers, > > Well, not really. As the video pointed out, the system was designed

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

You can avoid the giant NAT box as long as you don't have to add a new customer for whom you don't have an available IPv4 address. At that point, you either have to implement the giant NAT box for your future (and possibly an increasing percentage of your existing) customers, or, stop adding ne

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On 24 Sep 2012, at 22:42, Mike Jones wrote: > While you could do something similar without the encapsulation this > would require that every router on your network support routing on > port numbers, Well, not really. As the video pointed out, the system was designed to leverage hierarchy to r

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On 24 September 2012 21:11, Adrian Bool wrote: > > On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:57, Tore Anderson > wrote: > >> * Tore Anderson >> >>> I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD. >> >> FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today, >> it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending:

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:57, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Tore Anderson > >> I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD. > > FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today, > it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending: > > https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/video/5 > https://ri

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

* Tore Anderson > I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD. FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today, it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending: https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/video/5 https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/91-townsley-map-ripe65-ams-sept-24-2012.

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

* Mark Radabaugh > Thanks for the help. We are actually in decent shape with respect to > IPv4, probably at least 1 if not 2 years at current growth rate. We can > deliver dual stack with public IPv4/6 to customers now. This is the > planning stage for <>, assuming there are no better options. >

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On 9/22/12 4:03 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: * Mark Radabaugh We can already do dual stack - that's not really a problem. I was really rather hoping to avoid the giant NAT box. I'll take a look at DS Lite and or NAT64/DNS64 and see if that makes any sense. Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some for

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

* Randy Bush >> Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a «giant NAT box» as part >> of the solution, I'm afraid. Same shit, different wrapping. > > ds-lite is in the provider core. talk to the telco's lawyers when you > want to use a new protocol. > > nat64 is at my cpe border. Mark was a

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

In message , Randy Bush writes: > > Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a =ABgiant NAT box=BB as part > > of the solution, I'm afraid. Same shit, different wrapping. > > ds-lite is in the provider core. talk to the telco's lawyers when you > want to use a new protocol. DS-lite can be de

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

> Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a «giant NAT box» as part > of the solution, I'm afraid. Same shit, different wrapping. ds-lite is in the provider core. talk to the telco's lawyers when you want to use a new protocol. nat64 is at my cpe border. randy

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

* Mark Radabaugh > We can already do dual stack - that's not really a problem. I was > really rather hoping to avoid the giant NAT box. I'll take a look at DS > Lite and or NAT64/DNS64 and see if that makes any sense. Both DS-Lite and NAT64 contain some form of a «giant NAT box» as part of the

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On 22/09/2012, at 12:04 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: >> Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What software/equipment do we need in >> place as a ISP to ensure these customers can reach IPv4 only hosts? > > I would say you want to do dual-stack, but shift the users that don't *need* > public IPs i

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

Dhcpv6, radius .. take your pick --srs (htc one x) On Sep 21, 2012 7:04 PM, "Mark Radabaugh" wrote: > > The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much > documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to > point me in the right direction? > > Can we assign IPv

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:22:18 -0400, TJ said: > > Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with > CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the > customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in > spending a lot of resources on s

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

> Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in spending a lot of resources on something the consumer can't currently use. > Note: S

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:42:20 -0400, Mark Radabaugh said: > Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with > CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the > customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in > spending a lot of res

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

Op 21-9-2012 21:42, Mark Radabaugh schreef: Running dual stack to residential consumers still has huge issues with CPE. It's not an environment where we have control over the router the customer picks up at Walmart. There is really very little point in spending a lot of resources on someth

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On 9/21/12 9:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote: The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On 9/21/12 6:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote: The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

The folks that have done the most work in enabling IPv6-only end users seem to be CERNET2 in China. To let people get to v4, they're using what they call IVI (get it?), which is basically NAT64+DNS64. If you don't mind runn

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much documentation > on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to point me in the > right direction? This all depends on how your manage your last-mile and terminate users

Re: Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much > documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to > point me in the right direction? > > Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What software/equipment do we > nee

Throw me a IPv6 bone (sort of was IPv6 ignorance)

The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What software/equipment do we need in place as a ISP to ensure these customers can rea

Re: IPv6 Burgers (was: IPv6 Ignorance)

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message > , W > illiam Herrin writes: >> Worse, that's if we were managing IPv6 delegations the way we manage >> IPv4 delegations. We're not. We're using sparse allocation. And 6RD. >> And default customer allocations of 65,000 LANs. And o

Re: IPv6 Burgers (was: IPv6 Ignorance)

In message , W illiam Herrin writes: > Worse, that's if we were managing IPv6 delegations the way we manage > IPv4 delegations. We're not. We're using sparse allocation. And 6RD. > And default customer allocations of 65,000 LANs. And other interesting > stuff that drastically increases the consum

Re: IPv6 Burgers (was: IPv6 Ignorance)

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM, William Herrin wrote: > The 1/4 inch patty holds all the IPv4 LANs whose IPv4 capacity I'm > calling 2^28. IPv6's in principle has 2^64 LANs, so an increase of > 2^36 LANs. Patty was 1/4 inch, so our IPv6 patty is 2^32 inches or > about 10 billionths of a lightyear

Re: IPv6 Burgers (was: IPv6 Ignorance)

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Richard Brown wrote: > Another measure of the size of the IPv6 address space... Back on World IPv6 > Day in June 2011, Dartware had a barbecue. (Why? Because the burgers had 128 > (bacon) bits and we served IP(A) to drink :-) You can see some photos at: > http:/

Re: IPv6 Burgers (was: IPv6 Ignorance)

On 2012-09-17 13:48, Richard Brown wrote: Another measure of the size of the IPv6 address space... Back on World IPv6 Day in June 2011, Dartware had a barbecue. (Why? Because the burgers had 128 (bacon) bits and we served IP(A) to drink :-) You can see some photos at: http://www.networkworld.com/

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

6rd itself isn't inherently silly. Mapping your customers onto an entire /32 is. You're much better off taking the size of your largest prefix and assigning a number of bis for the number of prefixes you have. For example, if you have /14, /14, /15, /16, /16, /16, /18, /19, /20, /22, /22, /22, /2

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

I won't dispute that, but let's look at some of the densest uses of it, factoring in the vertical aspects as well... Let's assume an 88 story sky scraper 1 city block square (based on an average of 17 city block/mile). That's 96,465 sq. feet (8,961,918 sq. cm.) total building foot print. Subtra

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 18, 2012, at 09:38 , Jason Baugher wrote: > On 9/18/2012 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis wrote: >> Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick >> head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this >> concentration of addresses, if you reduce t

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

In message <34689.1348009...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wri tes: > --==_Exmh_1348009609_2143P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:18:28 -0400, William Herrin said: > > > In http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018180

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:18:28 -0400, William Herrin said: > In http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018180.html > I complained about mapping the full 32-bits of IPv4 address into an > IPv6 prefix. You responded, "You say that like it's somehow a bad > thing," and "I'm simply not

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM, wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:35:43 -0400, William Herrin said: > >> Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for >> convenience within our 6RD network. > > Well yeah. You blow 32 bits for silly reasons, you run out of bits. Film at > 11.

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

In message <86lig7cvpw@seastrom.com>, "Robert E. Seastrom" writes: > > Seth Mattinen writes: > > > I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from > > some of the posters is kind of shocking. > > There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the guy wh

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:57:34AM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote: > Considering the rather extensive discussion on this list of using > quantum entanglement as a possible future communications medium that > would nearly eliminate latency, I don't see how my comment is moot or a > waste. You ne

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: > > ...waste of NANOG list bandwidth. > > I sure get a chuckle when I read this on a list for people that swing around > 10Gb/s pipes all day. That's why I included a word you omitted fr

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

>On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: > ...waste of NANOG list bandwidth. I sure get a chuckle when I read this on a list for people that swing around 10Gb/s pipes all day. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 > >

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 9/18/2012 12:07 PM, Cutler James R wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: >> On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: >>> What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking >>> about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll hav

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices on the moon or at other locations in spac

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > > What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about > IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices > on the moon or at other locations in space. > > Jason Practical considerations

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 9/18/2012 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis wrote: Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area. The point here is that

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

H On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, "Beeman, Davis" wrote: > Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick > head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this > concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface > area. Th

RE: IPv6 Ignorance

Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area. The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface ar

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 09/18/2012 08:08 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: We've been doing this for years on both Juniper & IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be someone else. We do run into this whole feature parity thing often. The vendors seem to be challenged in this space. I suspect a significant part of it is they don't ac

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:35:43 -0400, William Herrin said: > Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for > convenience within our 6RD network. Well yeah. You blow 32 bits for silly reasons, you run out of bits. Film at 11. pgpvFDJ2NdnzN.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

It was supported before there. We were using it prior to that release. You needed a smu though. I can perhaps find details if they are that important for you. Jared Mauch On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Steve Meuse wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: >> >> >>

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > We've been doing this for years on both Juniper & IOS/IOS-XR devices. > Must be someone else. > I may be wrong, but IOS-XR on A9K only supported v6 on bundle-ether interfaces as of 4.1.2-ish. That, of course, leads to the conversation

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Steve Meuse wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > >> >> >> What do I mean when I say "it must support IPv6"? I mean two things. >> First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under >> IPv4 must work under I

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > >What do I mean when I say "it must support IPv6"? I mean two things. >First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under >IPv4 must work under IPv6. If you have exceptions, you'd better >document the

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 17, 2012, at 23:35 , William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> We thought 32 bits was humongous in the context of a research project >> that would connect universities, research institutions and some military >> installations. >> >> In that context,

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

Seth Mattinen writes: > I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from > some of the posters is kind of shocking. There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the guy who observes that dual stacking is of limited utility if there are no v4 addresses to be

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > We thought 32 bits was humongous in the context of a research project > that would connect universities, research institutions and some military > installations. > > In that context, 32 bits would still be humongous. > > Our estimation of humon

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;)

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

Owen DeLong wrote: > I also have no more difficulty remembering IPv6 addresses in general > than I had with IPv4. I can generally remember You have already demonstrated your ability to remember things wrongly so many times in this ML, your statement is very convincing. > the prefixes I care abou

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

> In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of > arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign > IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. we assign them /64s

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 17, 2012, at 16:41 , Masataka Ohta wrote: > John Mitchell wrote: > >> I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... > > They don't. Instead, they suffer from it. > I find it quite useful, actually. I would not say I suffer from it at all. >> Remember that the address space

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:54 , Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 >> addresses per square cm? > > Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional comput

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

ould > yield 80-140 VM's per host :) that gets you close on density. > > -Original Message- > From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:55 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance > > On Mon, Sep 17

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

I agree with the way you are looking at it. I know it sounds impressive to talk about hosts, but in ipv6 all that matters is how many subnets do I have and how clean are my aggregation levels to avoid large wastes of subnets. Host addressing is not an issue or concern. So to talk about 128 bi

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 9/17/2012 4:32 PM, John Levine wrote: In article you write: With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to happen in a decade or two? In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

John Mitchell wrote: > I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... They don't. Instead, they suffer from it. > Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or > 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) That is one of a major design flaw of IPv6 as a result of fail

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

In article you write: >With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to >happen in a decade or two? In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign IP addresses to objects smaller th

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

In message , Cameron Byrne writes: > On Sep 17, 2012 5:04 AM, "Tom Limoncelli" wrote: > > > > My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their > own: > > > > " I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I > > have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4

RE: IPv6 Ignorance

VMware vSphere on quad processor 1u servers with 768gb of RAM :) that should yield 80-140 VM's per host :) that gets you close on density. -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re:

RE: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:18 , Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote: >> I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... >> >> Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or >> 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in >> perspe

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 > addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;)

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:16 , Mark Blackman wrote: > > On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:55, Adrian Bool wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard wrote: >>> On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:18 , Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote: >> I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... >> >> Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or >> 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in >> persp

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 17, 2012, at 07:55 , Adrian Bool wrote: > > Hi, > > On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: >>> It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a >>> utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero >> >

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

Actually, as documented below, the assumption is merely that the waste will be less than 4095/4096ths of the address space. ;-) Owen On Sep 17, 2012, at 06:46 , John Mitchell wrote: > That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big hope) > that the upper bits are more reg

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 16, 2012, at 16:58 , John R. Levine wrote: >>> IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them. >>> For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the >>> opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that >>> techniques from IPv4 to

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 16, 2012, at 20:23 , Randy Bush wrote: > [ yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. this is not new. but ] > >> "We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of >> addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than >> a lot of us might expect gi

Re: IPv6 Burgers (was: IPv6 Ignorance)

Another measure of the size of the IPv6 address space... Back on World IPv6 Day in June 2011, Dartware had a barbecue. (Why? Because the burgers had 128 (bacon) bits and we served IP(A) to drink :-) You can see some photos at: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/scenes-ipv6-day-barbecue

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 9/17/12 8:23 AM, Adrian Bool wrote: Hi Mike, On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins wrote: RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional justification if needed. Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here. 32-bits would be a more sensible allocation size

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

Hi Mike, On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins wrote: > RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional > justification if needed. Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here. 32-bits would be a more sensible allocation size to LIRs, allowing them construct the

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote: I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it was, yo

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:55, Adrian Bool wrote: > > Hi, > > On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: >>> It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a >>> utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero >> >>

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Adrian Bool wrote: > > I don't really agree with the "IPv6 think" concept - but let's put that > aside for now... > > The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR > providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they therefore have

RE: IPv6 Ignorance

RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional justification if needed. Mike -Original Message- From: Adrian Bool [mailto:a...@logic.org.uk] Sent: 17 September 2012 15:55 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance Hi, On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

Hi, On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: >> It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a >> utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero > > You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideratio

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote: > It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a > utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how many hosts you have, but how many subnets you ar

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Sep 17, 2012 5:04 AM, "Tom Limoncelli" wrote: > > My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own: > > " I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I > have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't > dual stack." http:

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big hope) that the upper bits are more regulated to stricter standards than the lower bits. In any system there is room for human error or oversight that is always going to be a concern, but standards, good practises and policies

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell wrote: > > > Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving > > /48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have > > 2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out > to a population of > > approxima

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

Has said forum guy never heard of a phased implementation? Or would he rather a "big bang" cut over, i'm sure that will work swell. The best way to summarise the feeling for IPv6 was expressed in the Packet Pushers Podcast and that is Network Administrators and System Administrators have forgotten

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to happen in a decade or two? --srs (htc one x) On Sep 17, 2012 5:58 PM, "John Mitchell" wrote: > I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... > > Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is... Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it was, you will still get 667 quadrillion address per

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own: " I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't dual stack." http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722 Not true but it cer

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On 9/16/12 9:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote: and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33 networks, meaning we could cram it into a

Re: IPv6 Ignorance

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote: So I agree with you that there is still a risk that this is going to get screwed up, but I don't feel too gloomy yet. yep. but we dis some wisp hacker for saying so. not cool. I have to admit I never read the forum text so I don't know exactly what w

  1   2   >