Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP

Nice ;-) I’ve been doing this for some time already … and have trials with several customers (tens of thousands of customers). Note that most of the routers that support LEDE (quite a big list), will work by default with a standard stable release. You mention it, but we use something like for

Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP

On 2017-12-28 04:11, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Thanks for sharing. It's interesting to see enterprise customers > adopting OpenWRT/LEDE despite no official support from CPE vendors for > 3rd party firmware on their products. One reason we are using Linksys so far is their nominal

Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP

I’ve customers with have 1Gbit FTTH link using LEDE with NAT. Depending on the hardware (I’m talking about Chinese made routers with cost less than 50 USD) they easily reach 9xx Mbits. It may depend on the chip set, as some LEDE implementations take advantage of hardware NAT. I’ve tested it

Re: Implementing 464XLAT at a small WISP

In many ocassions you have MUCH better support from the OpenSource community than from vendors …. Look at Ubiquity and Mikrotik, supporting a very reduced set of transitions mechanisms. I’ve many WISP that have big troubles to keep growing because that, and you know what, at the end they

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote: > On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P > link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2 addresses. But in IPv6, > due to ping-pong and just so many technical manuals and other advices,

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp. If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many addresses. On 28 December 2017 at 10:39, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

And /48 was chosen as the site size so that we didn’t have to think about that either. It’s large enough to cover almost all sites with additional /48s to be provided if you run out of /64s. Nothing in the last 20+ years has lead me to believe that these decisions were wrong. In fact NOT

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote: > > On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need >> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet >> no matter how many or

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Thomas Bellman wrote: > > My problem with the IPv6 addressing scheme is not the waste of 64 bits > for the interface identifier, but the lack of bits for the subnet id. > 16 bits (as you normally get a /48) is not much for a semi-large organi-

Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 10:34 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > This may be useful: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/ > > Regards, > Jordi > > -Mensaje original- > De: NANOG en nombre de Octavio Alvarez >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Sigh… Let’s stop with the IPv4-think. Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a 64-bit total address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a no-brainer. Owen > On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:55 , Michael Crapse

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote: > Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need > to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet > no matter how many or how few machines you want to put on it. > Before anyone rolls out the argument

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 9:31 am, Thomas Bellman wrote: > > On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need >> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet >> no matter how many or

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 12/28/2017 03:44 PM, James R Cutler wrote: > There is no prohibition of requesting an allocation which matches your > network. That is, simply request what is needed with suitable data for > justification and get your /40 or whatever. We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On December 28, 2017 at 13:31 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:14 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > > > > Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often > > comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128 > >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez wrote: > > On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote: >> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: >> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P >> link with a /30, you are using 2 and wasting 2

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 2017-12-28 17:55, Michael Crapse wrote: Yes, let's talk about waste, Lets waste 2^64 addresses for a ptp. If that was ipv4 you could recreate the entire internet with that many addresses. After all these years people still don't understand IPv6 and that's why we're back to having to do

Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

This may be useful: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/ Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: NANOG en nombre de Octavio Alvarez Responder a: Fecha: jueves, 28 de diciembre de 2017, 19:31 Para:

Re: Assigning /64 but using /127 (was Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too)

On 12/28/2017 11:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Dec 28, 2017, at 09:23 , Octavio Alvarez wrote: >> >> On 12/20/2017 12:23 PM, Mike wrote: >>> On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: >>> Call this the 'shavings', in IPv4 for example, when you assign a P2P >>> link

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Not really. RFC6164 is meant to make sure routers support /127, but doesn’t mandate or say that you must use that. This is another perspective: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-p2p-from-customer-prefix/ Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: NANOG

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

the difference between thinking in terms of 128 bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all for 2^128 addresses mitigating the problem. Everyone has been discussing structured assignments

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On December 28, 2017 at 19:23 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote: > IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for > you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you > understand that background. By "IPng" I only meant whatever would

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On December 28, 2017 at 19:47 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote: > the difference between thinking in terms of 128 > bits vs 2^128 addresses which seem to be conflated in these discussions > > > I think you're wrong. Show me where anyone made a case in this thread at all > for

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:14 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often > comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128 > addresses. It's not like there were ever anything close to 4 billion > (2^32) usable

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

[Deliberate top post] All this fear about “waste” killing IPv6 is unwarranted. It is about time to look at the business aspect of wasting human resources fiddling with micro-optimization. We seem to have have two choices: A. Keep arguing and complicating management of the IPv6 Internet and

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Barry, The absence of data is not data :) -mel beckman > On Dec 28, 2017, at 12:05 PM, "b...@theworld.com" wrote: > > >> On December 28, 2017 at 19:47 m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote: >>the difference between thinking in terms of 128 >>bits vs 2^128 addresses

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Just an interjection but the problem with this "waste" issue often comes down to those who see 128 bits of address vs those who see 2^128 addresses. It's not like there were ever anything close to 4 billion (2^32) usable addresses with IPv4. We have entire /8s which are sparsely populated so

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

IPng was discussed to death and found not workable. The history is there for you to read. In the meantime, it's not helpful claiming IPng until you understand that background. -mel > On Dec 28, 2017, at 11:15 AM, "b...@theworld.com" wrote: > > > Just an interjection but

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:50:54 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: IPv6 prefixes are not databases. Coding this sort of thing into your address space is silly. And a 2^64 LAN, or ptp link, isn't? People have been doing this for decades. They did it before NAT! NAT just made

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Brock Tice wrote: > > We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on a reasonable > sparse allocation scheme that would account for future growth that > seemed like the best option. Could you detail the reasoning behind your allocation

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 15:28, Brock Tice wrote: > >> On 12/28/2017 03:44 PM, James R Cutler wrote: >> There is no prohibition of requesting an allocation which matches your >> network. That is, simply request what is needed with suitable data for >> justification and get your

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

:: Now think about scaling. Yes :: If the population doubles, we're now down to four spare /3s. :: If that doubled population doubles the number of devices, :: we're down to two spare /3s. If the population doubles :: again, there will be no civilization left, let alone an :: Internet.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

You should go directly to ARIN, get a proper ISP allocation the size you need and have your upstream route that. Owen > On Dec 28, 2017, at 17:46, Michael Crapse wrote: > > As a small local ISP, our upstream isn't willing to give us more than a > /48, their statement

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would multiply it by roughly 4 billion. I'm saying I should be able to use whatever

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:15:45 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: If that's the case, it will be because there were few restrictions placed upon that address space. And if some genius comes up with

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

I think its time you all had a bit of a holiday break and stopped thinking of IP networking for a little while, Just saying...

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:41:57 -0500, "Chuck Church" said: > If we'd just put a stake in the ground and say residences can have one > router and bridge everything below that we'd be further ahead. I just can't > see 99.999% of users being interested in subnetting their homes and writing >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:35:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a 64-bit total address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a no-brainer. Incorrect. The original 128 address

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 11:24 am, Ricky Beam wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:35:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a >> 64-bit total >> address and the additional 64 bits was added to make

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

>> > My worry is when pieces of those /64s get allocated for some specific > use or non-allocation. For example hey, ITU, here's half our /64s, > it's only fair...and their allocations aren't generally available > (e.g., only to national-level providers as is their mission.) Why would anyone

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out? > > I like that one! :-) Seriously. If we run out of networks while handing out /48s, by migrating everything to HTTPS we can claw back the 16 bit 'port' field in the IP header and reassign it as part of the 140-bit IPv6.1 address space.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out? > > I like that one! :-) >> Seriously. All I was trying to say is there're going to be things not thought of yet that will chew up address space faster than ever before now that everyone believes it's essentially inexhaustible. And, I

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On December 28, 2017 at 17:48 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > >> > > My worry is when pieces of those /64s get allocated for some specific > > use or non-allocation. For example hey, ITU, here's half our /64s, > > it's only fair...and their allocations aren't generally available > >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

IPv6 space is being wasted. We know that much. No one needs more than 8 bits for site-local global addresses in the upper 64 (2/3xxx:::::/64) of the address. I'm about to propose the most harebrained idea NANOG has ever seen. I feel like supersites are getting more addresses

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Tony Wicks wrote: > > I think its time you all had a bit of a holiday break and stopped thinking > of IP networking for a little while, Just saying... Nah. This is a useful conversation (and argument) to have.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

The lightbulb in this scenario has a severe security issue, and thus allows total control of any windows computer on the network because it's set to a private/trusted network. Also note, the lightbulb is publicly addressable and has a 8MHz processor incapable of firewalling itself.. On 28

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Brock Tice wrote: > > Most of our customers only have 2-5 devices. I know this is not the case > in most of America but we are quite rural and for many people they've > never had better than 1.5Mbps DSL until we install service at their > location.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:26:46 -0700, Brock Tice said: > I will again say I am indeed no expert, I am happy to get feedback. Is > there some kind of allocation scheme where a residential user or even a > small or medium business will have any chance of using 4096 /64s? They won't burn 4096

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:50 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > Comcast is passing out CPE that provides a subnet for the actual subscriber, > and another one for *other* Comcast roaming customers. And somehow this > works for a company the size of Comcast without the customers needing to

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 2:51 pm, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:26:46 -0700, Brock Tice said: > >> I will again say I am indeed no expert, I am happy to get feedback. Is >> there some kind of allocation scheme where a residential user or even a >> small or medium

1/2u 100g Metro-E Aggregation Switch

Anyone know of any alternatives to the Ciena 5170 Service Aggregation Switch? I am looking for something that has 4 100g ports for metro ethernet in a 1/2u form factor. Regards, Mitchell T. Lewis [ mailto:mle...@techcompute.net | mle...@techcompute.net ] [

Re: 1/2u 100g Metro-E Aggregation Switch

QFX5110-48S, 4x100 or 4x40 plus 48 SFP+ Sent from my iPad On Dec 28, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Lewis,Mitchell T. > wrote: Anyone know of any alternatives to the Ciena 5170 Service Aggregation Switch? I am looking for something that has 4

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > Instead, think about how we can carve up a 2^61 address space (based on the > current /3 active global allocation pool) between 2^32 people (Earth's > current population) Of course, I screwed up the numbers (thanks

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

As a small local ISP, our upstream isn't willing to give us more than a /48, their statement "Here's a /48 that will give you unlimited addresses that you'll never run out of". Therefore we give businesses /60s and residentials /64. If only we could do as suggested here and give everyone a /48,

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 14:14:06 -0500, b...@theworld.com said: > My wild guess is if we'd just waited a little bit longer to formalize > IPng we'd've more seriously considered variable length addressing with > a byte indicating how many octets in the address even if only 2 > lengths were immediately

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > All I was trying to say is there're going to be things > not thought of yet that will chew up address space > faster than ever before now that everyone believes it's > essentially inexhaustible. And, I expect,

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Peripherally, it's worth noting that, in far less time then we have not migrated from IPv4 to IPv6, the UK moved from 7-digit to 11-digit telephone numbers. If that's not embarrassing ... --lyndon

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

>> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and >> we should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would >> multiply it by roughly 4 billion. > I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want. You are totally free to do that if you please, no

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: > > Home networks with multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know > how to set them up, and there's little technical need for it. Again, you are assuming you know how people will use networks forever. Stop

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

-Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ricky Beam Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 9:55 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too >Every scenario everyone has come up with is

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:54:46 -0500, "Ricky Beam" said: > Every scenario everyone has come up with is "unlikely". Home networks with > multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know how to set them > up, and there's little technical need for it. And yet, my Lede-based router burned up

Cogent on-net corporate building

Anyone a cogent customer in an on-net corporate building(Not a Cogent or Carrier Neutral Datacenter)? I have a few questions about setup. Off list responses are fine. Regards, Mitchell T. Lewis [ mailto:mle...@techcompute.net | mle...@techcompute.net ] [ http://linkedin.com/in/mlewiscc

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:36:51 +1100, Mark Andrews said: > PD is designed so that a device (router) can request multiple PD requests > upstream. The interior router just needs to make a upstream request on behalf > of the downstream device and any prefixes it will be allocating itself. OK, I

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 4:21 pm, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:36:51 +1100, Mark Andrews said: >> PD is designed so that a device (router) can request multiple PD requests >> upstream. The interior router just needs to make a upstream request on behalf >> of the

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: > Back to the main theme... artificially cutting the address space in half, > just makes the point even stronger. IPv6 address space is, in fact, half as > big as people think it is, because we've drawn a line at /64 Hi

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 14:31, Thomas Bellman wrote: > >> On 2017-12-28 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Sure, but that’s intended in the design of IPv6. There’s really no need >> to think beyond 2^64 because the intent is that a /64 is a single subnet >> no matter how many

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> [snip... I hate slash, I hate android, blah balh] > > Back to the main theme... artificially cutting the address space in half, > just makes the point even stronger. IPv6 address space is, in fact, half as > big as people think it is, because we've drawn a line at /64 -- and the >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

> On 29 Dec 2017, at 1:54 pm, Ricky Beam wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: >> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we >> should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would multiply

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

Hi Lyndon, thanks for taking the time to address my questions. Responses below. On 2017-12-28 17:57, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >> On Dec 28, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Brock Tice wrote: >> We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on a reasonable >> sparse allocation scheme that