Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
Yep, that is the recommended way to do things .. for good reasons ... 

http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/PL12/maia.pdf 

Another great presentation, enven though it is Mikrotik Centric.. but the core 
issues apply across the board. 

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 

> From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 12:12:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

> We "allocate" a /64 to each PtP link, but actually use a /126 (or /127) mask 
> so
> packets addressed to the remainder of the /64 simply get dropped because there
> is no route in the table.

> Jesse DuPont

> Network Architect
> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> Celerity Networks LLC

> Celerity Broadband LLC
> Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc

> Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband
> On 1/15/17 10:36 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

>> On 1/15/17 8:55 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:

>>> Anything longer than a /64 will break SLAAC, neighbor discovery, and
>>> other v6 “stuff”. If you don’t need these then a /127 is for you. Just
>>> know the downsides of a /64 vs a /127. The RFC says you can do it, but
>>> it conflicts with the before mentioned V6 stuff. Frankly I don’t care
>>> about conserving IPV6 space.

>> It's not all about conservation, which is why I pointed out that an RFC does
>> indeed exist for the case of longer prefixes on router interfaces. Whether
>> those things are important or not is an exercise left up to the reader.

>> ~Seth


Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Jesse DuPont

  
  
We "allocate" a /64 to each PtP link, but actually use a /126 (or
/127) mask so packets addressed to the remainder of the /64 simply
get dropped because there is no route in the table.


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jesse DuPont

  Network
  Architect
  email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
  Celerity Networks LLC
  Celerity
  Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
  Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
  

  

On 1/15/17 10:36 AM, Seth Mattinen
  wrote:

On 1/15/17 8:55 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:
  
  


Anything longer than a /64 will break SLAAC, neighbor discovery,
and

other v6 “stuff”.  If you don’t need these then a /127 is for
you. Just

know the downsides of a /64 vs a /127. The RFC says you can do
it, but

it conflicts with the before mentioned V6 stuff.   Frankly I
don’t care

about conserving IPV6 space.


  
  
  
  It's not all about conservation, which is why I pointed out that
  an RFC does indeed exist for the case of longer prefixes on router
  interfaces. Whether those things are important or not is an
  exercise left up to the reader.
  
  
  ~Seth
  


  



Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Chris Wright
Going through this myself. Will post results when it's finished if I'm not dust 
by then. AT taking 6 months just to get THEIR end together.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 11:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

I think we all need this.

-Original Message-
From: Mitch Koep
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:58 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

Need some advise on implementing dual stack.

Best practice or practical.

Thanks

Mitch Koep

219-851-8689 cell






Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Chuck McCown
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 practicesand 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

Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Ken Hohhof
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 practicesand 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://ww

Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
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 practicesand 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-De
>> 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 provi

Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Ken Hohhof
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 practicesand 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-De
> 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
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Mike Hammett
*nods* 

I'm about to roll out IPv6 on my WISP, but I've done it on my IX (which was 
really no different than anything else). For the WISP, I heard how we should be 
laying them out and I likely have parts of this off by a magnitude, but I'd 
say: 

/64 per individual in-home subnet, but that's where you just let PD work it's 
magic 
/56 per broadband customer 
/48 per AP 
/48 per dedicated customer 
/40 per tower 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 11:45:53 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6 

On 1/15/17 9:43 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: 
> 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. 


Which is nice because all the time wasted having to plan and predict how 
big a subnet will need to be is eliminated: everything is a /64 and move on. 

~Seth 



Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Seth Mattinen

On 1/15/17 9:43 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

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.



Which is nice because all the time wasted having to plan and predict how 
big a subnet will need to be is eliminated: everything is a /64 and move on.


~Seth


Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
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 practicesand 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-Design.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 

Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Seth Mattinen

On 1/15/17 8:55 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:



Anything longer than a /64 will break SLAAC, neighbor discovery, and
other v6 “stuff”.  If you don’t need these then a /127 is for you. Just
know the downsides of a /64 vs a /127. The RFC says you can do it, but
it conflicts with the before mentioned V6 stuff.   Frankly I don’t care
about conserving IPV6 space.




It's not all about conservation, which is why I pointed out that an RFC 
does indeed exist for the case of longer prefixes on router interfaces. 
Whether those things are important or not is an exercise left up to the 
reader.


~Seth


Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Cassidy B. Larson
The section on “reasons for using longer prefixes”, specifically: 

5.2 . Neighbor Cache 
Exhaustion Issue

Intrigues me.  How someone could exhaust my neighbor cache by targeting every 
address in my PTP /64 :)

I dont think you really need SLAAC for PTP links anyway if you’re manually 
configuring those sorts of interfaces, which I do. Or I can just use link-local 
on internal PTPs.  Other /64-ish features like RS/RA I don’t particularly need 
on PTP links. 

-c

> On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Justin Wilson  wrote:
> 
> But, as with anything, you have tradeoffs.
> 
> Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to-
>point inter-router links.  Routers MUST disable Subnet-Router anycast
>for the prefix when /127 prefixes are used.
> 
> 
> Anything longer than a /64 will break SLAAC, neighbor discovery, and other v6 
> “stuff”.  If you don’t need these then a /127 is for you. Just know the 
> downsides of a /64 vs a /127. The RFC says you can do it, but it conflicts 
> with the before mentioned V6 stuff.   Frankly I don’t care about conserving 
> IPV6 space.  
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net 
> 
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net  Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
> 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com   COO/Chairman
> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
> 
>> On Jan 15, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Seth Mattinen > > wrote:
>> 
>> On 1/15/17 8:08 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:
>>> -assign a /64 for point to point links (aka the equivalent of /30s).
>>> Again, don’t think in terms of host count.  anything smaller than /64’s
>>> breaks things.  Some providers out there assign smaller blocks, but it
>>> breaks things and isn’t RFC. Using a /128 is a hot debate at the moment.
>>> Some folks are willing to live with the stuff that is broken. The whole
>>> /127 or /128 debate came up due to security concerns mainly.
>> 
>> 
>> Use of /127 on router links is RFC 6164
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164 
>> 
> 



Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Justin Wilson
But, as with anything, you have tradeoffs.

Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to-
   point inter-router links.  Routers MUST disable Subnet-Router anycast
   for the prefix when /127 prefixes are used.


Anything longer than a /64 will break SLAAC, neighbor discovery, and other v6 
“stuff”.  If you don’t need these then a /127 is for you. Just know the 
downsides of a /64 vs a /127. The RFC says you can do it, but it conflicts with 
the before mentioned V6 stuff.   Frankly I don’t care about conserving IPV6 
space.  



Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

> On Jan 15, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
> On 1/15/17 8:08 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:
>> -assign a /64 for point to point links (aka the equivalent of /30s).
>> Again, don’t think in terms of host count.  anything smaller than /64’s
>> breaks things.  Some providers out there assign smaller blocks, but it
>> breaks things and isn’t RFC. Using a /128 is a hot debate at the moment.
>> Some folks are willing to live with the stuff that is broken. The whole
>> /127 or /128 debate came up due to security concerns mainly.
> 
> 
> Use of /127 on router links is RFC 6164
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164
> 



Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Ken Hohhof
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 practicesand 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-Design.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




Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
You might want to review some of those recommendations...
They don't fall into best practicesand 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-Design.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


Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Seth Mattinen

On 1/15/17 8:08 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:

-assign a /64 for point to point links (aka the equivalent of /30s).
 Again, don’t think in terms of host count.  anything smaller than /64’s
breaks things.  Some providers out there assign smaller blocks, but it
breaks things and isn’t RFC. Using a /128 is a hot debate at the moment.
 Some folks are willing to live with the stuff that is broken. The whole
/127 or /128 debate came up due to security concerns mainly.



Use of /127 on router links is RFC 6164

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164


Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Justin Wilson
Yes, Customers should get /56s.  The accepted rule was customers should get 
/48s, but in an ISP environment the “customer” is the POP.  Some other things.

-Don’t worry about host count.  It’s ipv6.  Throw the numbers out the window.  
Think in terms of subnets and proper boundaries.  Count subnets, not addresses
-Do not assign customers from POP aggregates
-Use iBGP to carry customer ips
-Don’t aggregate until you get into ebgp
-assign a /64 for point to point links (aka the equivalent of /30s).  Again, 
don’t think in terms of host count.  anything smaller than /64’s breaks things. 
 Some providers out there assign smaller blocks, but it breaks things and isn’t 
RFC. Using a /128 is a hot debate at the moment.  Some folks are willing to 
live with the stuff that is broken. The whole /127 or /128 debate came up due 
to security concerns mainly.
-Just like in IPV4 space. separate blocks for loopbacks and do /128s
-Static assignments for customer space is a losing battle.  v6 has many 
mechanisms built in.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

> On Jan 15, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> 
> Customers should get /56s.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>  <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> 
> 
>  <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> From: "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:lewis.berg...@gmail.com>>
> To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 6:28:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6
> 
> Butch has a practical class on IPV6 which included, years ago,  a template 
> for this.  It isn't as challenging as you might think. We did it about 5 
> years ago. 
> 
> If I remember right,  we assigned a /48 to our server network,  another /48 
> for our backbone, every tower got a /48, and every customer got a /64. All of 
> that was based on the guidance initially provided by ARIN, or at least I 
> think that's where it came from. Here is a chart that lists the number of ip 
> in each that might help.
> http://www.potato-people.com/blog/2009/02/ipv6-subnet-size-reference-table/ 
> <http://www.potato-people.com/blog/2009/02/ipv6-subnet-size-reference-table/>
> 
> Now going 100% v6 is another story. Not trouble free or easy. Never got that 
> far. 
> 
> On Jan 15, 2017 1:09 AM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com 
> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
> I think we all need this.
> 
> -Original Message- From: Mitch Koep Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 
> 9:58 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: [AFMUG] Best Way to 
> implement dual stack IPv4/6 
> Need some advise on implementing dual stack.
> 
> Best practice or practical.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mitch Koep
> 
> 219-851-8689  cell



Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Mike Hammett
Customers should get /56s. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> 
To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 6:28:09 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6 


Butch has a practical class on IPV6 which included, years ago, a template for 
this. It isn't as challenging as you might think. We did it about 5 years ago. 


If I remember right, we assigned a /48 to our server network, another /48 for 
our backbone, every tower got a /48, and every customer got a /64. All of that 
was based on the guidance initially provided by ARIN, or at least I think 
that's where it came from. Here is a chart that lists the number of ip in each 
that might help. 
http://www.potato-people.com/blog/2009/02/ipv6-subnet-size-reference-table/ 




Now going 100% v6 is another story. Not trouble free or easy. Never got that 
far. 


On Jan 15, 2017 1:09 AM, "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 


I think we all need this. 

-Original Message- From: Mitch Koep Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 
9:58 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack 
IPv4/6 
Need some advise on implementing dual stack. 

Best practice or practical. 

Thanks 

Mitch Koep 

219-851-8689 cell 






Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Paul Stewart
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  wrote:
> 
> Need some advise on implementing dual stack.
> 
> Best practice or practical.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mitch Koep
> 
> 219-851-8689 cell
> 




Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-15 Thread Lewis Bergman
Butch has a practical class on IPV6 which included, years ago,  a template
for this.  It isn't as challenging as you might think. We did it about 5
years ago.

If I remember right,  we assigned a /48 to our server network,  another /48
for our backbone, every tower got a /48, and every customer got a /64. All
of that was based on the guidance initially provided by ARIN, or at least I
think that's where it came from. Here is a chart that lists the number of
ip in each that might help.
http://www.potato-people.com/blog/2009/02/ipv6-subnet-size-reference-table/

Now going 100% v6 is another story. Not trouble free or easy. Never got
that far.

On Jan 15, 2017 1:09 AM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> I think we all need this.
>
> -Original Message- From: Mitch Koep Sent: Saturday, January 14,
> 2017 9:58 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual
> stack IPv4/6
> Need some advise on implementing dual stack.
>
> Best practice or practical.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mitch Koep
>
> 219-851-8689 cell
>
>


Re: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-14 Thread Chuck McCown

I think we all need this.

-Original Message- 
From: Mitch Koep 
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:58 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6 


Need some advise on implementing dual stack.

Best practice or practical.

Thanks

Mitch Koep

219-851-8689 cell



[AFMUG] Best Way to implement dual stack IPv4/6

2017-01-14 Thread Mitch Koep

Need some advise on implementing dual stack.

Best practice or practical.

Thanks

Mitch Koep

219-851-8689 cell