On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:15:39PM -0400, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
In practice, changing stuff, especially globally, is not as simple
as that.
From http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4192:
'Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:38:58 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
... If you've got a VPN tunnel device, too often the remote
end will want to contact you at some numerical IPv4 address and isn't
smart enough to query DNS to get it.
As I was told by Cisco, that's a security
In message op.u156b0mztfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:38:58 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
... If you've got a VPN tunnel device, too often the remote
end will want to contact you at some numerical IPv4 address and isn't
smart
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Nathan Ward na...@daork.net wrote:
On 20/10/2009, at 3:02 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
plus want the ability to take their address
space with them when they change ISPs (because there are too many
devices and applications that insist on having hard-coded IP
In message 18a5e7cb0910201638j7a24a10dwb8440a42f8f9c...@mail.gmail.com, Bill
Stewart writes:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Nathan Ward na...@daork.net wrote:
On 20/10/2009, at 3:02 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
plus want the ability to take their address
space with them when they change ISPs
There is no need to say at XX:XX on DD/MM/ we will be switching
prefixes. One can be much smarter about how you do it.
You can just introduce the new prefix. Add second address to the
DNS. Do your manual fixes. Remove the old addresses from the DNS.
Stop using the old prefix when
In message 1256085698.30246.109.ca...@karl, Karl Auer writes:
There is no need to say at XX:XX on DD/MM/ we will be switching
prefixes. One can be much smarter about how you do it.
=20
You can just introduce the new prefix. Add second address to the
DNS. Do your manual fixes.
On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
In practice, changing stuff, especially globally, is not as simple
as that.
From http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4192:
'Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that the concept
of network renumbering as a normal or frequent procedure
In message 1069dfd4-87a3-4e38-aebc-43c05c16d...@arbor.net, Roland Dobbins wri
tes:
On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
In practice, changing stuff, especially globally, is not as simple
as that.
From http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4192:
'Some took it on themselves to
On Oct 20, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Remember there are lots of machines that renumber themselves several
times a day as they move between work and home
The problem isn't largely with the endpoints - it's with all the other
devices/policies/etc. which overload the EID with
If you've got an addressing system with enough bits that you don't
have to start stealing them, it makes sense to pick some boundary
length between
our-problem : their-problem
128 bits is long enough, and changing protocols is nasty enough, that
it should let you Never Have To Do It
On 20/10/2009, at 3:02 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
plus want the ability to take their address
space with them when they change ISPs (because there are too many
devices and applications that insist on having hard-coded IP addresses
instead of using DNS, and because DNS tends to get cached more
On 20/10/2009, at 3:10 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 03:07:39PM +1300, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 20/10/2009, at 3:02 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
plus want the ability to take their address
space with them when they change ISPs (because there are too many
devices
This is a bit annoying though, yeah. But, I'm not sure I can think of a good
solution that doesn't involve us changing the routing system so that we can
handle a huge amount of intentional de-aggregates or something.
Within the RIPE region we're currently discussing a document on IPv6
route
* Chris Adams
This brings up something else I'm trying to figure out. We're not a
huge ISP; I've got our /32 but I don't see us using more. We have two
main POPs, each with Internet links, plus a link between the two. Our
IPv4 allocations are larger than the minimum, so I split our IPv4
The big problem here is that CIDR is tough to teach, even to
engineering students. This seems bizarre and counterintuitive, but its
true. I know this because I've done it. Its really easy to teach
classful addressing, on the other hand. Other problems include the
issue that many of the
-
From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgold...@t1r.com]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:51 PM
To: Joe Abley
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
The big problem here is that CIDR is tough to teach, even to
engineering students. This seems bizarre and counterintuitive, but its
true. I
an
engineer who can't grasp basic binary math.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgold...@t1r.com]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:51 PM
To: Joe Abley
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
The big problem here is that CIDR is tough to teach, even
On Oct 16, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I've taught both. If you try to teach it in Decimal, Hex, or Octal,
you're right, it's hard
to teach CIDR and easy to teach classful.
It really does not matter the representation as long as you divide
your Address Pie with a Binary Knife.
I can't offer any knowledgeable advice about PPPoA/E. We have never used
it ourselves.
On 14/10/09 22:16 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
So you're saying moving away from PPPoA/E and just going bridged?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Ask Pannaway if they
Of course, with IPv4, you never assigned a large enough block to begin
with that would anticipate all growth, so routing additional blocks was
a lot easier than changing blocks, cleaner than secondary IPs
multiplying like crazy, etc., etc. None of that would be an issue with
a single /64.
Once upon a time, Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com said:
And only the largest ISPs will outgrow a /32 allocation.
This brings up something else I'm trying to figure out. We're not a
huge ISP; I've got our /32 but I don't see us using more. We have two
main POPs, each with Internet
On 16/10/2009, at 1:17 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Is there any good solution to this? I don't expect us to fill the /32
to justify expanding it (although I do see ARIN appears to have left
space for up to a /29; I guess that's their sparse allocation
policy?).
Your justification is that you
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
With IPv6, we've got our single /32. From what I understand,
if I try to advertise a /33 from the smaller POP, many (most?)
will drop it (if my upstreams even take it). If I advertise the /32
from both routers, when that
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 16/10/2009, at 1:17 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Is there any good solution to this? I don't expect us to fill the /32
to justify expanding it (although I do see ARIN appears to have left
space for up to a /29; I guess that's their sparse allocation policy?).
Your
Ok, I've decided to do this a different way to my usual ranting.
Instead of explaining the options over and over and hoping people can
make sense of the complexities of it, become experts, and make good
informed decisions, I've made a flow chart. Feel free to ask about
details and I can
In message eecc7b21-7390-446b-b54f-48d92ab88...@daork.net, Nathan Ward writes:
Ok, I've decided to do this a different way to my usual ranting.
Instead of explaining the options over and over and hoping people can
make sense of the complexities of it, become experts, and make good
In a message written on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:14:40PM -0500, Chris
Adams wrote:
..
What about web-hosting type servers? Right now, I've got a group of
servers in a common IPv4 subnet (maybe a /26), with a /24 or two
routed
to each server for hosted sites. What is the IPv6 equivalent? I
On 14/10/2009, at 7:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
DS-Lite is there for when the ISP runs out of IPv4 addresses to
hand one to each customer. Many customers don't need a unique IPv4
address, these are the ones you switch to DS-Lite. Those that do
require a unique IPv4 you leave on full dual
In message e752070a-9081-4b36-8fb9-f60e0e420...@daork.net, Nathan Ward writes
:
On 14/10/2009, at 7:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
DS-Lite is there for when the ISP runs out of IPv4 addresses to
hand one to each customer. Many customers don't need a unique IPv4
address, these are the ones
-Original Message-
From: Justin
To go along with Dan's query from above, what are the preferred methods
that other SPs are using to deploy IPv6 with non-IPv6-capable edge
hardware? We too have a very limited number of dialup customers and
will never sink another dollar in the product.
Nathan Ward, please stand up.
Adrian
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, TJ wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Justin
To go along with Dan's query from above, what are the preferred methods
that other SPs are using to deploy IPv6 with non-IPv6-capable edge
hardware? We too have a very limited
No idea, I haven't looked at that stuff in a while. But I would assume
so, as it's easier to build a foundation than jumping straight to
something difficult?
Or did you learn calculus in grade school? Just askin' ;)
Scott
Mark Newton wrote:
On 13/10/2009, at 2:02 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
On 2009-10-13, at 07:39, Scott Morris wrote:
No idea, I haven't looked at that stuff in a while. But I would
assume
so, as it's easier to build a foundation than jumping straight to
something difficult?
I've found RIP to be a reasonable way to teach the concept of a
routing protocol,
While I may agree that teaching classful routing is stupid, the
addressing part lets people start getting the concept of binary. While
I'd love to think that people coming out of the school system have a
grasp of simple mathematical skills, more and more I'm finding that's
not the case.I
Ok, fair enough. I was working on the presumption not so much that it
was simpler but more than it provided a logical structure. Having some
framework to start with provides a base.
True that binary is binary is binary... But rather than just an
amorphous collection of x-number of bits,
Heh - Every time I try to say something close to don't ever use this or
not really used anymore WRT RIP I get a student or three that is using it,
and in fact it is there only option due to certain vendors' choices of what
routing protocols to support on certain classes of gear.
/TJ ... really
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:39:46 EDT, Scott Morris said:
No idea, I haven't looked at that stuff in a while. But I would assume
so, as it's easier to build a foundation than jumping straight to
something difficult?
Unfortunately, classful addressing is a foundation for networking the same way
Doug Barton wrote:
Out of curiosity who is conducting this class and what was their
rationale for using /127s?
It's a GK class. The instructor seems to be fairly knowledgeable and
has a lengthy history consulting on and deploying IPv6. The class seems
to be geared much more towards
On 13/10/09 15:33, Justin Shore wrote:
He didn't really give much of a reason for the /127s yet. I think it's
coming up in a later session. I think it basically boiled down to
whether or not the customer would actually use anything bigger. I'll
write back when we get into that discussion.
On 12/10/09 21:34 -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
To go along with Dan's query from above, what are the preferred methods
that other SPs are using to deploy IPv6 with non-IPv6-capable edge
hardware? We too have a very limited number of dialup customers and
will never sink another dollar in the
George Michaelson wrote:
As a point of view on this, a member of staff from APNIC was doing a
Masters of IT in the last 3-4 years, and had classfull A/B/C addressing
taught to her in the networks unit. She found it quite a struggle to
convince the lecturer that reality had moved on and they
On 2009-10-13, at 08:05, Scott Morris wrote:
While I may agree that teaching classful routing is stupid, the
addressing part lets people start getting the concept of binary.
That's true of classless addressing, too. When students have problems
with non-octet bit boundaries, that just means
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
How many addresses do you like on point-to-point circuits?
Scott
I allocate a /64, but currently I configure only a /127 subnet on the
actual interface. That prevents the neighbor table explosion/NS/ND
traffic flooding
How many addresses do you like on point-to-point circuits?
That will become one of those great interview questions, because anyone who says
something like a /127 or a /64 will be someone that you probably
don't want to hire.
The right answer is to explain that there are some issues surrounding
I'm ok with teaching it to beginners to explain where we came from but that
should be it.
But why does that have to be done first? Why can't they teach current best
practice in addressing, and then point out that historically it was
done different
but that caused problems which led to today's
On 2009-10-13, at 14:46, Matthew Petach wrote:
I allocate a /64, but currently I configure only a /127 subnet on the
actual interface.
For BRAS/PPPoE deployments you're dealing with a point-to-point link,
so in principle you can number the endpoints using whatever you want.
They're just
On Oct 13, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2009-10-13, at 14:46, Matthew Petach wrote:
I allocate a /64, but currently I configure only a /127 subnet on the
actual interface.
For BRAS/PPPoE deployments you're dealing with a point-to-point
link, so in principle you can number the
Dan White wrote:
I don't recall if Pannaway is a layer 3 or layer 2 DSLAM, but we have a mix
of Calix C7 (ATM) and Calix E5 (Ethernet) gear in our network. We're kinda
in the same boat, but we expect to be able to gracefully transition to dual
stacked IPv4/IPv6 without having to replace DSL
On 13/10/09 15:32 -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
one like the BARs. Occam did it right. They didn't try to pretend to be
in the router business. They stuck with L2.
Occam did it partially right. They're half-bridging only - not true layer 2
to an aggregator (which is not necessary in their
Dan White wrote:
Occam did it partially right. They're half-bridging only - not true layer 2
to an aggregator (which is not necessary in their scenario). The problem
with the access vendor doing half-bridging is that they have to be very
layer-3 smart, and Occam was not quite there for IPv6 last
So far, I have only dabbled with IPv6, but my reading of the RFCs is that
VLSM for lengths beyond /64 is not required. Subsequently, to use anything
longer is an enormous gamble in an enterprise environment. I envision
upgrading code one day and finding that your /127 isn't supported any more
and
eric clark wrote:
So far, I have only dabbled with IPv6, but my reading of the RFCs is that
VLSM for lengths beyond /64 is not required. Subsequently, to use anything
longer is an enormous gamble in an enterprise environment. I envision
upgrading code one day and finding that your /127 isn't
Once upon a time, Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com said:
How many addresses do you like on point-to-point circuits?
That will become one of those great interview questions, because anyone who
says
something like a /127 or a /64 will be someone that you probably
don't want to hire.
On Oct 13, 2009, at 4:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com said:
How many addresses do you like on point-to-point circuits?
That will become one of those great interview questions, because
anyone who says
something like a /127 or a /64 will
Chris Adams wrote:
I guess I'm missing something; what in section 3 is this referring to?
I can understand /64 or /126 (or maybe /124 if you were going to
delegate reverse DNS?), but why /112 and 16 bits for node identifiers
on a point-to-point link?
The only thing special about /112 is that
That was the point. :)
Scott
Matthew Petach wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com
mailto:s...@emanon.com wrote:
How many addresses do you like on point-to-point circuits?
Scott
I allocate a /64, but currently I configure only a /127 subnet on
While entirely possible, I actually view it going the other way. RFC
3627 points out some nice issues as far as DAD and anycast operation is
concerned, but what I'd see (just my random opinion as I haven't
bothered to write an RFC) is that it would make entirely much more sense
to come up with a
In a message written on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:26:20PM -0500, Chris Adams
wrote:
The author feels that if /64 cannot be used, /112, reserving the last
16 bits for node identifiers, has probably the least amount of
drawbacks (also see section 3).
I guess I'm missing something; what
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Cord MacLeod cordmacl...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv4? What's the point of a /64 on a point to point link? I'm not clear
IP Addressing uniformity and simplicity.
Use of /127s for Point-to-Point links introduces addressing
complexity that may be avoided in
Once upon a time, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org said:
2) Colon's separate 16 bit chunks in IPv6. /112's allow ::1,
::2 to be your IP's.
Yeah, this is what I forgot about. Makes sense now.
Another (quite possibly dumb :-) ) few questions come to mind about IPv6
assignment:
I would
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:33:03 -0400, Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.com
wrote:
He didn't really give much of a reason for the /127s yet. I think it's
coming up in a later session. I think it basically boiled down to
whether or not the customer would actually use anything bigger. I'll
In a message written on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:14:40PM -0500, Chris Adams
wrote:
I would expect you just assign static addresses to servers. Are there
pros/cons to using /64 or something else there? If I'm statically
assigning IP (and DNS, etc. servers) info, why would I not just
configure
on an all router segment perhaps, but even then I
shoot for /64s on anything that is not a PtP link ...
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: Chris Adams [mailto:cmad...@hiwaay.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:15 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
Once upon a time
Once upon a time, Nathan Ward na...@daork.net said:
On 14/10/2009, at 2:14 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
What about web-hosting type servers? Right now, I've got a group of
servers in a common IPv4 subnet (maybe a /26), with a /24 or two
routed
to each server for hosted sites. What is the IPv6
On 14/10/2009, at 3:49 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Nathan Ward na...@daork.net said:
On 14/10/2009, at 2:14 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
What about web-hosting type servers? Right now, I've got a group of
servers in a common IPv4 subnet (maybe a /26), with a /24 or two
routed
to each
Chris Adams wrote:
I guess I'm missing something; what in section 3 is this referring to?
I can understand /64 or /126 (or maybe /124 if you were going to
delegate reverse DNS?), but why /112 and 16 bits for node identifiers
on a point-to-point link?
It falls on a 16 bit boundry and is
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.com
wrote:
I'm actually taking an IPv6 class right now and the topic of
customer assignments came up today (day 1). The instructor was
suggesting dynamically allocating /127s to residential customers. I
relayed the gist of this
On 13/10/2009, at 12:54 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.com
wrote:
I'm actually taking an IPv6 class right now and the topic of
customer assignments came up today (day 1). The instructor was
suggesting dynamically allocating /127s to
I'm going to have to pull the mixed-hat on this one. If you are
comparing this to a true academia environment, I'd agree with you.
Too much theory, not enough reality in things. However, I've yet to see
the part about where the person is being trained from.
I happen to train people at CCIE
On 13/10/2009, at 2:02 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
I happen to train people at CCIE level. I also happen to do
consulting,
implementation, and design work. In my training environment, there
are
all sorts of re-thinking of what/how things are being taught even
within
the confines of
How are other providers approaching dial-up? I would presume we are in the
same boat as a lot of other folks - we have aging dial-up equipment that
does not support IPv6 (3com Total Control). Our customer base has dropped
quite a bit, and we have even kicked around the idea dropping that
I would disagree. IPv6 is designed around class boundaries which, in my
understanding, are:
A layer two network gets assigned a /64
A customer gets assigned a /48
A site gets assigned a /48. It could be a customer site, or one of
your many sites
or one of a customer's many sites. I interpret
There seems to be a variance between It's OK to just give out a /64 to
You better be thinking about giving out a /48. I can live in those
boundaries and am most likely fine with either. I'm leaning toward a /56
for regular subscribers and a /48 only for business or large scale
customers, and
Sorry to be a curmudgeon and let me play devil's advocate for a minute.
I realize that the address space is enormous; gigantic, even, but if we
treat it as cavalierly as you all are proposing, it will get used up.
If its treated like an infinite resource that will never, ever be used
up
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:24:30AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote:
Sorry to be a curmudgeon and let me play devil's advocate for a minute.
I realize that the address space is enormous; gigantic, even, but if we
treat it as cavalierly as you all are proposing, it will get used up.
If its
And I will play devil's advocate to the devil's advocate ... wait, does that
make me God's advocate? Nice!
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote:
Sorry to be a curmudgeon and let me play devil's advocate for a minute. I
realize that the address space is
Sorry to be a curmudgeon and let me play devil's advocate for a minute. I
realize that the address space is enormous; gigantic, even, but if we treat
it as cavalierly as you all are proposing, it will get used up. If its
treated like an infinite resource that will never, ever be used up as
On 08/10/09 11:46 +0100, Michael Dillon wrote:
There seems to be a variance between It's OK to just give out a /64 to
You better be thinking about giving out a /48. I can live in those
boundaries and am most likely fine with either. I'm leaning toward a /56
for regular subscribers and a /48 only
Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net writes:
the people with the clue-by-fours are over on the IPv6 lists.
They've upgraded to clue-by-six's. Not as handy, but will last longer.
Bjørn
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Snip - good points all
Most of those concerns are in fact mitigated by a well implemented Privacy
implementation
Which is why I started off by mentioning RFC4191. ;)
-End Original Message-
And
On 05/10/09 22:28 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:13:37 -0400, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
I don't understand. You're saying you have overlapping class boundaries
in your network?
No. What I'm saying is IPv6 is supposed to be the new, ground-breaking,
unimaginably huge
On 05/10/09 22:53 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
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
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:herrin-na...@dirtside.com]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 12:58 PM
To: Brian Johnson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
/60 - the smallest amount you should allocate to a downstream customer
with more than one
On 05/10/09 23:23 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
You underestimate the power of the marketing department and the bean
counters. I assure you, residential ISPs are looking for schemes to give
out as little address space as possible.
That has not been my (limited) experience. If you are aware of
-Original Message-
From: robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov [mailto:robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller, but given the current
issues with routing /48's
...@frb.gov
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:14:01 -0400, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
wrote:
Generally speaking, we shouldn't *want* end users to be provided
with
a
single /64. The number of addresses is not the point. The idea of
getting rid
On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov [mailto:robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:34:28 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
although that isn't the case today. However, I believe
that 90.1 is supposed to be parsed equivalent to 90.0.0.1
and 90.5.1 is supposed to be treated as 90.5.0.1, so,
32.1.13.184.241.1 should also work for the above if
you expanded todays
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:25:44 -0500
Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
On 05/10/09 23:23 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
You underestimate the power of the marketing department and the bean
counters. I assure you, residential ISPs are looking for schemes to give
out as little address space as
unimaginably huge *classless* network. Yet, 2 hours into day one, a
classful boundary has already been woven into it's DNA. Saying it's
No bit patterns in a V6 address indicate total size of a network. v6
doesn't bring classful addressing back or get rid of CIDR..
v6 dispenses with
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:40:40 -0400, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
I think it is both classless and classfull (although it's different
enough that we probably should stop using loaded IPv4 terms ...)
It's _classless_. There's none of this Class
Brian Johnson wrote:
From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is for
assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it is
currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
subnet,
-
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 tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is
for
assignment of a /64 to an end user
On Oct 5, 2009, at 17:38, Seth Mattinen wrote:
The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
subnet, /56 if they need more than one.
Brrzt, wrong. Neither the end user nor you know the answer to that
question!
So the only sensible thing is to always give them a /56.
-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 tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is
for
assignment of a /64
Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 17:38, Seth Mattinen wrote:
The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
subnet, /56 if they need more than one.
Brrzt, wrong. Neither the end user nor you know the answer to that
question!
So the only sensible thing is to
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote:
From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is for
assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it is
currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
No. A /64 is one
more-or-less. Can I suggest you read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
Think of ipv6 not as 128 bits of address space, but more as a addressing
system with a globally unique host part and 2^64 possible subnets. In this
respect it's substantially different to ipv4.
And after reading
To: Brian Johnson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com
wrote:
From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is
for
assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
