What I need (and have mentioned before) is CGNAT or DSLite in a box
solution for the whole company. Someone to sell the the hardware, software
and customized configuration so I never have to obtain IPV4 again.
There is money to be made here folks and I am not willing ( too lazy) to
learn enough to take advantage of the opportunity to create something like
this. But I will be a customer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 12:52 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6
That actually makes sense and is useful.
Much more so than "Wrong!" or "The RFC says". Which yes are basically
pissing contests, but thanks to Buzzfeed, I hesitate to use that term.
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 1:28 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6
So discarding the discussions which can possible be classified as 'pissing
contest' replies without any reasoning..
The difference in opinion is most of the IPV6 customer allocation size
discussion revolves around a particular view of the end-user site size and
the perceived potential network deployment that they may do..
Folks which are in the give them a larger prefix (smaller quantity of IP's)
are from the camp which says my customers are not doing anything
sophisticated, and I would like to monetize the allocation of smaller
prefixes by being able to get an upgrade charge.
Folks which are in the give them a smaller prefix (larger quantity of IP's)
are from the camp which says, there is plenty to go around, don't try to
split hairs .. just do the smaller prefix, this can be universal and provide
enough flexibility to cover all potential scenarios, which may exist in the
near or far future.
And yes without having an deeper understanding on how the protocol works, it
is very possible that such a discussion comes across as a pissing contest...
(I am not an expert, am still learning.. but above is how I have been able
to reconcile all the different discussions).
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 1:07:08 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6
But still, I remember coming back from a WISPA show where I attended a
session on IPv6 implementation and best practices. Upon returning,
people on the lists said those best practices were dead wrong. So
while I may be naive wanting someone to say here's a universal
template, it seems no matter what you do some people will say you did it
wrong.
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 11:43 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6
I respectfully disagree with the analogy...
In case of religion opinions are based on beliefs.....
In case of IPv6 there are underlying technical reasons of why the
larger prefix...
it is impossible to do a one-size that fits all... and some of those
reasons may
not be apparent or visible right away but that does not change them...
Typically in IPv4 the thinking is top down.. i.e. we breakdown what we
have, and assign the smallest qty of address then we use all the
tricks in the book to make them work...
With IPv6, due to how the protocol is designed, for proper
understanding, one needs to look at it from bottom up... and instead
of counting qty of IP addresses needs to count the amount of subs-nets
that can be carved out of the allocation.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 11:55:00 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6
So like religion, whatever you do, someone will fervently claim you
are dead wrong and will burn in hell.
-----Original Message-----
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6
You might want to review some of those recommendations...
They don't fall into best practices....and can be problematic.
There are many discussions and docs on this topic...A while ago I had
a discussion on this topic on Nanog list..
There was a 'key' item pointed out to me and I had to grasp that to
gain a full understanding on what size to assign.
... You have to think interns of subnet's and not qty of Addresses to
assign properly.
Here is an excellent presentation..
http://www.txv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Doyle-IPv6-Address-D
e
sign.pdf
http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-ipv6-guidelines.
pdf
--------
explanation:-
There is no concept of NAT in IPv6, and IPv6 networks by design are
'stacked routers' vs a traditional flat LAN (as in ipv4 networks).
so it is important to provide the ability to break down the subnet
that you assign to your customers..
e.g.
a /64 is / should be the smallest level of assignment (this of a LAN,
or any
Link (PTP or PTMP).) i.e. one lan segment
a /56 would allow for 256 Lan Segments... or a 8 level deep network
a /48 would allow for 65536 Lan segments or a 16 level deep network
(I am going my memory on the network level depth, so I may be over
estimating..
:) )
There is a lot of wisdom behind assign a /48 to each customer.. .and
there is a lot of discussion on doing something a bit smaller for
smaller customers e.g. a /56.
Think of it this way... IPv6 is how IoT communicates.. and each
device connecting to the 'home network' can act as a router, thus a
layers..
e.g. Smart Cars, will have a router, to connect to devices in the
car, and it will connect to the home network as a sub layer network...
etc...
Regards
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org>
To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 8:05:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6
Ok .. lots of folks here can probably help but you’ll need to be a
bit more specific :)
Advise on planning for it? Implementing it on specific gear? last
mile to customer? … over entire deployment?
Here’s some info that may help (from network perspective):
Full dual stack deployment across network with Juniper MX throughout
/126 for point to point
/128 for loopback
OSPFv3 for connected networks and loopbacks iBGP for full internal
and external routes (where needed)
For DSL/Wireless (PPPOE):
/40 and /47 IP pools per device that is serving customers (varies
with number of customers per device) Customers receive /64
allocation via DHCP-PD over their existing PPPOE connection
For Cable (DHCP):
/48 and /56 IP pools per geographic region that is serving customers
Customers receive /64 allocation via DHCP-PD
For fiber (static or BGP)
/126 point to point
/64 allocation by default, /56 upon request, larger if justified
I’ve pretty much followed this model in one form or other since 2008
when I did the first network end to end
Paul
On Jan 14, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Mitch Koep <af...@abwisp.com> wrote:
Need some advise on implementing dual stack.
Best practice or practical.
Thanks
Mitch Koep
> >> 219-851-8689 cell
