On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky i...@gashinsky.net wrote:
1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
2) ping sweep of death
...
For most people, using /127's will be a lot operationaly easier then
maintain those crazy ACLs, but, like I said before, YMMV..
I'm in the /112
Daniel Senie wrote:
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space
cover? (If we as a species manages to spread
- Original Message
From: Dale W. Carder dwcar...@wisc.edu
On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
you face 2 major issues with not using /127 for
PtP-type circuits:
1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
Following this, IPv4 /30 would have the same problem vs /31?
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Dale W. Carder wrote:
::
:: On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
::
:: you face 2 major issues with not using /127 for
:: PtP-type circuits:
::
:: 1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
::
:: Let's say you put 2001:db8::0/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 on
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
:: On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: Matt meant reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
:: first */127* of the link, as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
:: scanning-type attacks (with a /126, there is still
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
of organisations.
the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
of organisations.
the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
for nearly
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
:: On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: Matt meant reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure
the
:: first */127* of the link, as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
:: scanning-type attacks
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:09:11 -0800
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
of organisations.
the
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:08:36 +1030
Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:09:11 -0800
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it
the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
largest of organisations.
That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks
to assign.
Would you clarify? Seriously?
we used to think we
In message m2sk9rsobb.wl%ra...@psg.com, Randy Bush writes:
the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
largest of organisations.
That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks
On 1/26/2010 23:32, Mark Smith wrote:
A minor data point to this, Linux looks to be implementing the
subnet-router anycast address when IPv6 forwarding is enabled, as it's
specifying Solicited-Node multicast address membership for the
all zeros node address in it's MLD announcements when an
On 27-1-2010 2:16, Steve Bertrand wrote:
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252
ipv6 address 2607:F118:x:x::/64 eui-64
ipv6 nd suppress-ra
ipv6 ospf 1 area 0.0.0.0
I've found that this setup, in conjunction with iBGP peering between
loopback /128's works well.
When OSPFv3 goes down and you
On 1/27/2010 5:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
of organisations.
the general intent of a class B allocation
-Original Message-
From: Grzegorz Janoszka [mailto:grzeg...@janoszka.pl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:10
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On 27-1-2010 2:16, Steve Bertrand wrote:
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252
ipv6 address 2607
On 28/01/2010, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
largest of organisations.
That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks
to assign.
Would
:: If a worst-case situation arises, and you have to peer with a device that
:: doesn't properly support /127's, you can always fall back to using /126's
:: or even /64's on those few links (this is why we reserved a /64 for every
:: link from the begining)..
::
:: If this is the case, why
On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
you face 2 major issues with not using /127 for
PtP-type circuits:
1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
Let's say you put 2001:db8::0/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 on a PtP
interface, and somebody comes along and ping floods
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:34:46 -0500
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 22:38
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Once you
-Original Message-
From: Mark Smith
[mailto:na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 23:07
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
SNIP
I didn't realize human friendly was even a nominal design
On 26/01/2010 13:35, TJ wrote:
The US DoD has the equivalent of a /13 ... what is the question?
In fact, they have a little less than a /18. This is still the largest
block when aggregated - France Telecom comes second with a single /19.
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Why can't IPv6 node addressing be as easy to understand and work with
as Ethernet addresses? They were designed in the early 1980s*. 28 years
or so years later, it's time for layer 3 addressing to catch up.
Becase
Owen DeLong wrote:
No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always apply a
more conservative
numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to innovate and try
other alternatives).
Owen
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread beyond this world before we
Daniel Senie wrote:
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Nathan Ward na...@daork.net wrote:
Why do you force POP infrastructure to be a /48? That allows you only 16 POPs
which is pretty restrictive IMO.
Why not simply take say 4 /48s and sparsely allocate /56s to each POP and
then grow the /56s if you require more
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
2) go to *RIR's and get /something to cover the number of remote
sites you
On 2010-01-26 at 10:05:29 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread beyond this world before we destroy it). Will
separate /3's, or subdivisions of subsequent /3's, be the best approach to
Chris,
Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG
mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
Ron
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
mathias.sei...@mironet.ch
On 1/26/10 7:43 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
o will your remote-office's ISP's accept the /48's per site? (vz/vzb
is a standout example here)
Not too worried about VZ. Given that large content providers are
getting end-site address space, I think they will have to adjust their
stance.
However,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ron Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
Chris,
Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG
mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
oh damned it! almost as many v6 ietf mailing lists as there are v6 addresses
On 26-1-2010 1:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
- Waste of addresses
- Peer address needs to be known, impossible to guess with 2^64 addresses
Most of us use ::1 for the assigning side and ::2 for the non-assigning side of
the connection. On multipoints, such as exchanges, the popular
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
2)
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always
apply a more conservative
numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s
On Jan 26, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
2) go to *RIR's and get
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
On 26-1-2010 1:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
- Waste of addresses
- Peer address needs to be known, impossible to guess with 2^64 addresses
Most of us use ::1 for the assigning side and ::2 for the non-assigning side
of
the connection.
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Matt Addison wrote:
:: You're forgetting Matthew Petach's suggestion- reserve/assign a /64 for
:: each PtP link, but only configure the first /126 (or whatever /126 you
:: need to get an amusing peer address) on the link.
Matt meant reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link,
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Matt Addison wrote:
:: You're forgetting Matthew Petach's suggestion- reserve/assign a /64 for
:: each PtP link, but only configure the first /126 (or whatever /126 you
:: need to get an amusing peer address) on the link.
Matt meant
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:38:43 -0800 (PST)
David Barak thegame...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Why can't IPv6 node addressing be as easy to understand and work with
as Ethernet addresses? They were designed in the early 1980s*. 28
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:13:22 -0500
Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't realize human friendly was even a
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
'nearly everybody with a single site'
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:11:41 -0500
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody,
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
Matt meant reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
first */127* of the link, as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
scanning-type attacks (with a /126, there is still the possibility of
ping-pong on a p-t-p interface) w/o
In message 20100127160401.1a963...@opy.nosense.org, Mark Smith writes:
Sure. However I think people are treating IPv6 as just IPv4 with larger
addresses, yet not even thinking about what capabilities that larger
addressing is giving them that don't or haven't existed in IPv4 for a
very long
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:47:35 +0200 (EET)
Pekka Savola pek...@netcore.fi wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
Matt meant reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
first */127* of the link, as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
scanning-type attacks
On 24/01/2010 02:44, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond MM,
you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with MMs before you
ran out of /64s.
Did somebody once say something like that about Class C
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
mathias.sei...@mironet.ch wrote:
Hi
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know
what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever
use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that 2,305,843,009,213,693,952
/64s. This is enough to fill over seven Lake Eries. The total amount
of ipv6 address
Good Morning!
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 05:45
To: Andy Davidson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit boundary
You can give your peers funny names, like 2001:db8::dead:beef ;)
- Prone to
From: Mathias Seiler [mailto:mathias.sei...@mironet.ch]
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit
In a message written on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:14:06PM +0100, Mathias Seiler
wrote:
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit boundary
You
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
While I agree with parts of what you are saying - that using the simple
2^128 math can be misleading, let's be clear on a few things:
*) 2^61 is still very, very big. That is the number of IPv6 network
segments available within 2000::/3.
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:08
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
While I agree with parts of what you
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:01 PM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:08
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our numbering plan is this:
1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
2) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we control both sides? /126
3) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we DON'T control both sides? /64
4) Loopback? /128
Within our /48 we've carved
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Harden harde...@uiuc.edu wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our numbering plan is this:
1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
2) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we control both sides? /126
3) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we
-Original Message-
From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
snip
2^128 is a very big number. However, from a network engineering
perspective, IPv6 is really only
From: TJ trej...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
-Original Message-
From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
snip
2^128 is a very big
On 26/01/2010, at 8:50 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
This is what we have planned:
2620::xx00::/41 AS-NETx-2620-0-xx00
2620::xx00::/44 Infrastructure
2620::xx01::/48
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit boundary
You can give your peers funny names,
On Jan 25, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
While I agree with parts of what you are saying - that using the simple
2^128 math can be misleading, let's be clear on a few things:
*) 2^61 is still very, very big. That is the
On Jan 25, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/25/2010 4:45 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever
use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that
2^128 is a very big number. However, from a network engineering
perspective, IPv6 is really only 64bits of network address space. 2^64
is still a very big number.
An end-user assignment /48 is really only 2^16 networks. That's not
very big once you start planning a human-friendly
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
2^128 is a very big number. However, from a network engineering
perspective, IPv6 is really only 64bits of network address space. 2^64
is still a very big number.
An end-user assignment /48 is really only 2^16 networks.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Once you start planning a practical address plan, IPv6 isn't as big as
everybody keeps saying...
It's more than big enough for any deployment I've seen so far with plenty
of room to spare.
Oh good! so the us-DoD's /10
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
An ISP allocation is /32, which is only 2^16 /48s. Again, not that big.
That's just the starting minimum. Many ISPs have already gotten much larger
IPv6 allocations.
Understood. Again, the problem for me is medium/large
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:50:35 -0500
Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Harden harde...@uiuc.edu wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our numbering plan is this:
1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
2) Autoconfigured hosts
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
snip
2^128 is a very big number
On 1/25/2010 20:06, Mark Smith wrote:
This from people who can probably do decimal to binary conversion
and back again for IPv4 subnetting in their head and are proud of
it. Surely IPv6 hex to binary and back again can be the new party
trick? :-)
Hehe. Decimal - binary in your head? I
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:04:31 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
I remember a day when 18 was the largest number of computers that would
ever be needed.
First off, it was 5, not 18. :)
Second, there's not much evidence that TJ Watson actually said it.
On 1/24/2010 10:03 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:04:31 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
I remember a day when 18 was the largest number of computers that would
ever be needed.
First off, it was 5, not 18. :)
Second, there's not much evidence that TJ Watson actually said
On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/23/2010 9:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond MM,
you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with MMs before you
ran out of /64s.
Did somebody once say something like that
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:57:17 -0800
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/23/2010 9:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond MM,
you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with
On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Actually, from what Christian Huitema says in his IPv6: The New
Internet Protocol book, the original IPv6 address size was 64 bits,
derived from Steve Deering's Simple Internet Protocol proposal.
IIRC, they doubled it to 128 bits to
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for
the change from 64 bits to 128.
During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of different
alternatives were considered. At one point, there was a
On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for
the change from 64 bits to 128.
During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of different
On 24/01/2010, at 5:28 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:52:21PM +0100, Mathias Seiler
wrote:
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64
- 2
On 24/01/10 12:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind.
I'd suggest using a /126. For two reasons.
1) Using EUI-64 addresses on router-router links is an error, the
consequences of which you encounter the first time you replace
some faulty
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:41:18 -0500
Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for
the change from 64
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:12:04 +1030
Glen Turner g...@gdt.id.au wrote:
On 24/01/10 12:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind.
I'd suggest using a /126. For two reasons.
1) Using EUI-64 addresses on router-router links is an error, the
During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of different
alternatives were considered. At one point, there was a compromise proposal
known as the Big 10 design, because it was propounded at the Big Ten
Conference Center near O'Hare. One feature of it was addresses of length
On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 24/01/2010, at 5:28 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:52:21PM +0100, Mathias
Seiler wrote:
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
between two routers. This
Hi
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know
what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64 -
2
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Mathias Seiler wrote:
So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;)
This thread:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/20788
had a long discussion regarding this topic.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/20788
A couple of points for thought:
1. Yes, the IPv6 address space is unimaginably huge. Even so, when every
molecule in every soda can in the world has its own IPv6 address in years
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:50:00 +
Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/20788
A couple of points for thought:
1.Yes, the IPv6 address space is unimaginably huge.
Even so,
On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:43 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
That's a new bit of FUD. References?
It isn't 'FUD'.
redistribute connected.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com
Injustice is relatively
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:
premature optimization is the root of all evil --Donald Knuth
A couple of points for
On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:07 AM, James Hess wrote:
Then obviously, it's giving every molecule in every soda can an IP address
that is the waste that matters. There are several orders of magnitude between
the number of molecules in a soda can (~65000 times
as many) as the number of additional
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
mathias.sei...@mironet.ch wrote:
Hi
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know
what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
mathias.sei...@mironet.ch wrote:
Hi
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know
what is your experience with IPv6 in this
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:04:26 +
Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:43 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
That's a new bit of FUD. References?
It isn't 'FUD'.
redistribute connected.
In my opinion it's better not to do blind redistribution. More control
means
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:08:05 -0500
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
mathias.sei...@mironet.ch wrote:
Hi
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know
what is your experience with IPv6 in this
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:08:05 -0500
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
mathias.sei...@mironet.ch wrote:
Hi
In
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
It isn't 'FUD'.
redistribute connected.
In that case, the fault would lie just as much with the unconditional
redistribution policy, as the addressing scheme, which is error-prone
in and of itself.
No matter how you
On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like
to know what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for
the link
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
