Apologies,
Wrong link:
https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v7.pdf
Kody Vicknair
Network Engineer
[cid:image764c5e.JPG@bb882327.44b4b1d7] <http://www.rtconline.com>
Tel: 985.536.1214
Fax: 985.536.0300
Email: kvickn...@reservetele.com
Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be
copied. Please notify Kody Vicknair immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. Kody Vicknair therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission.
From: Kody Vicknair
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 11:06 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation
All,
I’ve been doing some reading in preparation of IPv6 deployment and figuring out
how we will break up our /32. I think I’m on the right track in thinking that
each customer will be allocated a /48 to do whatever they wish with it.
I’ve read recent BCOP drafts that have been approved by the IETF:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554
It looks like the smallest subnet that should ever be assigned is a /64 on a
particular link.
Some questions that come to mind with IPv6:
In regards to Point to point links my thinking is this:
Assign a unique /64 to each point to point link with these addresses being
Globally routable. This seems to be what our IX providers do when assigning us
an IPv6 address. Am I correct in this train of thought? Why/Why not?
In regards to core loopback addressing my initial thoughts are as follows:
Assign a single /64 encompassing all /128’s planned for loopback addressing
schemes. Should I be using Unique Local addressing for loopbacks instead of
going with a Globally routeable addressing scheme? Should each interface IP
configuration have a /64 or a /128?
Also when talking about CPE mgmt addresses what do you think is a practical way
of going about assigning “Private” addressing schemes for cpe management
purposes.
I’m sure some of these questions will be answered when I dive deeper into how
OSPFv6 works as well as BGP in regards to IPv6.
Are any of you currently running IPv6 and wished you had done something
differently during the planning phase that may have prevented headaches down
the road?
