Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote: If you see IPv6 as a solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 space, take a look at http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf/. It may help at some point, but many of us see no clear way to get from here to there without massive growth in both the RIB and the FIB in the process. I am actually more concerned with the CPE problem and how to make autoconfiguration work for end users. For instance, should we assign /64 to end users and have them do whatever they need (subnet to /80 if they need more than one network)? We need to provision routes in whatever routers connect to customers, which I guess is the FIB/RIB-problem mentioned above? Is there general agreement that IPv6 requires a router at the customer prem to scale (ISP doesn't want to know what the end user devices are)? Also, is it ok to statically assign /64 to end user or should end user be able to switch addresses (some like dynamic IPs because it's not persistant over time and like the privacy you get by changing IP all the time). I haven't been able to find a BCP regarding the end user equipment and how to configure it, does anyone have any pointers? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
I was able to reach the japanse link which provided me with http://www.ipv6.org/howtos.html and http://www.wide.ad.jp/ -Henry - Original Message From: Steven Haigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Vassili Tchersky [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:39:01 AM Subject: Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:09:16AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Vassili Tchersky wrote: [..] XS4All (Netherlands) is providing the same service if I correctly remember. They used to have a product called PowerDSL, which did IPv6 over PPPv6, but apparently due to changes in the infra they had to drop this. XS4all does still, since about 2001 or so, provide a tunnelbroker to their own users. Every user can simply go to the service.xs4all.nl site, and view/modify their tunnel + subnet configuration there. Only static tunnels are supported though (at least this is afaik). It's kind of interesting that from 2001ish to current day and there is still only a handful of service providers worldwide that seem to offer *any* kind of support for IPv6. After all the propaganda, is there actually any other major deployments in the IPv6 space? From the ipv6.org web site, I see Most of today's internet uses IPv4, which is now nearly twenty years old. - read as it works well! IPv4 has been remarkably resilient in spite of its age, but it is beginning to have problems. - Really? Every network I know using IPv4 still works as designed. Most importantly, there is a growing shortage of IPv4 addresses, which are needed by all new machines added to the Internet. - I'm sure there's a lot more ways around this - and I'm sure the NANOG archives have a lot of thought food there. It also adds many improvements to IPv4 in areas such as routing and network autoconfiguration. - I would really love to know what these are that DHCP etc doesn't already do. I tried to check out the FAQ at http://faq.v6.wide.ad.jp/ but it wasn't reachable - maybe it needs IPv6 connectivity? As for routing 'improvements', doesn't more address space just give us more routes to handle? IPv6 is expected to gradually replace IPv4, with the two coexisting for a number of years during a transition period. - so this 'transition period' has been, what, 7 years so far? I'm still predicting that it'll be at least another 10 years before IPv6 amounts to much... On a side note, does anyone currently have issues getting new address space where it's operationally required? I don't know anyone first hand who has yet to come across this issue... -- Steven Haigh Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote: If you see IPv6 as a solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 space, take a look at http://www.civil-tongue.net/clusterf/. It may help at some point, but many of us see no clear way to get from here to there without massive growth in both the RIB and the FIB in the process. I am actually more concerned with the CPE problem and how to make autoconfiguration work for end users. For instance, should we assign /64 to end users and have them do whatever they need (subnet to /80 if they need more than one network)? We need to provision routes in whatever routers connect to customers, which I guess is the FIB/RIB-problem mentioned above? Is there general agreement that IPv6 requires a router at the customer prem to scale (ISP doesn't want to know what the end user devices are)? Also, is it ok to statically assign /64 to end user or should end user be able to switch addresses (some like dynamic IPs because it's not persistant over time and like the privacy you get by changing IP all the time). In my opinion there is two type of users as usually ISP services are marketed: 1. Home user - not really interested in configuration of their devices - they just want Internet (now IPv4, soon IPv4 and IPv6) connectivity: They generaly don't use more than one LAN internally. All their devices are connected either directly to ISP device or to the home-gateway purchased at the cornet. In this case the /64 with autoconfiguration is the best option. User don't have to configure anything (may be enabling IPv6 on their computers). 2. Power users/business users - they can configure their devices, and they want measured and reported SLAs. If they want IPv6 they can articulate their needs: /64, /60, /56, or /48 with prioritisation, filtering and other business needs. In this case DHCPv6 prefix delegation seems to be the most flexible solution. Since they can configure basic things on their device. The ISP can help them and negotiate accordingly... In my opinion 99% of the users belongs to the home user category. However I think 80% the IPv6 traffic volume will be generated by power/business users. I haven't been able to find a BCP regarding the end user equipment and how to configure it, does anyone have any pointers? There is a draft that starts addressing the CPE problem available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 If you think you can contribute, IETF v6ops welcomes you. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
On 19 dec 2007, at 10:16, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: I am actually more concerned with the CPE problem and how to make autoconfiguration work for end users. For instance, should we assign /64 to end users and have them do whatever they need (subnet to /80 if they need more than one network)? Subnets that aren't /64 don't support autonegotiation so you can't really subnet a /64 in practice. This means that you should probably give your customers something bigger, like a /64, a /56 or even a /48. (Yes, we have enough address space for a /48 per customer.) The tricky part is provisioning a subnet to a customer. There is a good protocol for that: DHCPv6 prefix delegation. But there aren't any CPEs on the market that support this. (If it wasn't for Apple's Airport Extreme base station and a few somewhat expensive and hard to configure Cisco boxes you could argue that there aren't any IPv6- capable CPEs commercially available in the first place.) We need to provision routes in whatever routers connect to customers, which I guess is the FIB/RIB-problem mentioned above? Don't think so. As long as you don't let your customers take their address space with them when they move you can aggregate customer space in your network (you can even waste some address space for that without complaints from ARIN) so in practice your IPv6 routing tables will probably be smaller than their IPv4 counterparts. Is there general agreement that IPv6 requires a router at the customer prem to scale (ISP doesn't want to know what the end user devices are)? The alternative is having your device act as the default gateway in your customer's LAN, which more or less means you need to have a separate subnet/VLAN per customer, which is usually not the best way to go in larger setups. Don't expect to be doing much with DHCP for IPv6, though, most stuff that's out there today doesn't support it and you still need router advertisements because DHCPv6 doesn't tell you your default gateway. Also, is it ok to statically assign /64 to end user or should end user be able to switch addresses (some like dynamic IPs because it's not persistant over time and like the privacy you get by changing IP all the time). Customers can already randomize the lower 64 bits of their address so there is some level of privacy. In a prefix delegation system I would probably make things such that customers get the same addresses for some time (a few months) but I get to change their prefix if/when I want to. I haven't been able to find a BCP regarding the end user equipment and how to configure it, does anyone have any pointers? Unfortunately, there is no industry-wide consensus on how CPEs and ISP equipment should interact for IPv6, so it's probably not possible at this point in time to make a CPE that will completely autoconfigure unless you stick to 6to4 tunneling which gets the job done but is less than optimal because it needs public gateways.
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: customers something bigger, like a /64, a /56 or even a /48. (Yes, we have enough address space for a /48 per customer.) The good part about using /48 is that it gives customers an even : boundry for their space. Apart from that, I think /56 is a better idea (or perhaps even a /60). Good point there about autoconfiguration, subnetting using less than /64 is probably a bad idea. So, out of our /32, if we assign each customer a /48 we can only support 65k customers. So in order to support millions of customers, we need a new allocation and I would really like for each new subnet allocated to be very much larger so we in the forseeable future don't need to get a newer one. So for larger ISPs with millions of customers, next step after /32 should be /20 (or in that neighborhood). Does RIPE/ARIN policy conform to this, so we don't end up with ISPs themselves having tens of aggregates (we don't need to drive the default free FIB more than what's really needed). Other option is to have more restrictive assignments to end users and therefore save on the /32, but that might be bad as well (long term). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
On 19 Dec 2007, at 11:58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: So, out of our /32, if we assign each customer a /48 we can only support 65k customers. So in order to support millions of customers, we need a new allocation and I would really like for each new subnet allocated to be very much larger so we in the forseeable future don't need to get a newer one. So for larger ISPs with millions of customers, next step after /32 should be /20 (or in that neighborhood). Does RIPE/ARIN policy conform to this, so we don't end up with ISPs themselves having tens of aggregates (we don't need to drive the default free FIB more than what's really needed). From the RIPE perspective, there are seven empty /32s between my / 32 and the next allocation. I imagine this is fully intentional, and allows the NCC to grow my v6 address pool, without growing my footprint in the v6 routing table. Andy
/48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
Changing subject for these replies which will definitely be a bit on the quite mean side... no offense but start reading for once. Next to that there are also LIR courses which cover all of this. (see other mail for /56 for end-user-sites, /48 for end-business-sites) Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: [..] So, out of our /32, if we assign each customer a /48 we can only support 65k customers. Can I read from this that you never actually read any of the $RIR policy documentation about getting IPv6 address space even though you did request a /32 before, clearly without thinking about it? So in order to support millions of customers, we need a new allocation new as in We already have one, but we actually didn't really know what we where requesting, now we need more and I would really like for each new subnet allocated to be very much larger so we in the forseeable future don't need to get a newer one. So for larger ISPs with millions of customers, next step after /32 should be /20 (or in that neighborhood). Does RIPE/ARIN policy conform to this, so we don't end up with ISPs themselves having tens of aggregates (we don't need to drive the default free FIB more than what's really needed). This explains quite a bit why people are looking so weird when certain other organizations get a /20 and upward from $RIR. My suggestion: start reading. Other option is to have more restrictive assignments to end users and therefore save on the /32, but that might be bad as well (long term). That would be stupid and totally against the idea of IPv6. Andy Davidson wrote: [..] From the RIPE perspective, there are seven empty /32s between my /32 and the next allocation. I imagine this is fully intentional, and allows the NCC to grow my v6 address pool, without growing my footprint in the v6 routing table. That is exactly what it is for. Then again, if you actually had *PLANNED* your address space like you are supposed to when you make a request you could have already calculated how much address space you really needed and then justify it to the $RIR. In case you have to go back to ask the $RIR for more you already made a mistake while doing the initial request... Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
Kevin Oberman wrote: [..] Note that sixxs only deals with commercial providers. Many (most?) of the major research and education networks around the globe have done IPv6 in production for years. That includes ESnet, DREN, NREN and Internet2 in the US, CAnet in Canada, Geant/Dante in Europe and a number of national networks in Asia. Which is a well know fact and who have quite a limited set of end-sites who can actually connect to them, that is why these are not listed. Similarly it doesn't list hosting providers either, enabling a colo to do IPv6 should be childs play, getting it to the enduser though... ;) That said, while we provide IPv6 services You provide services and access, but which places are actually enabled to use it? That the network is there is one thing, this is the easy part, linking up the end-sites is the hard one. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
/56 for home sites, /48 for business sites billing considerations (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
Mohacsi Janos wrote: [..] In my opinion there is two type of users as usually ISP services are marketed: 1. Home user - not really interested in configuration of their devices - they just want Internet (now IPv4, soon IPv4 and IPv6) connectivity: They generaly don't use more than one LAN internally. All their devices are connected either directly to ISP device or to the home-gateway purchased at the cornet. In this case the /64 with autoconfiguration is the best option. User don't have to configure anything (may be enabling IPv6 on their computers). This would force these places to: a) use bridging to get that single /64 onto their network thus making firewalling really difficult. b) get a 'power users' abo, which would thus make people have to PAY for getting more IP addresses. ISP's are paying their transits by paying for the *BANDWIDTH* usage. So why don't ISP's have a couple of classes (to keep it simple) which are like eg: 10Gb account 50Gb account 100Gb account This would also solve the Those stupid users are torrenting problem, as they are PAYING for the traffic and other costs that you actually have. Don't charge for IP addresses, charge for *BANDWIDTH* usage. If I have 200 devices on the network which don't do a thing (maybe they are light bulbs or it is my fridge) I will do much less traffic than one single user who is trying to complete his nature movie collection. 2. Power users/business users - they can configure their devices, and they want measured and reported SLAs. If they want IPv6 they can articulate their needs: /64, /60, /56, or /48 with prioritisation, filtering and other business needs. In this case DHCPv6 prefix delegation seems to be the most flexible solution. Since they can configure basic things on their device. The ISP can help them and negotiate accordingly... Scratching the 'power users' concept, as they belong in the above home user part, I agree. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
On 19 Dec 2007, at 12:24, Jeroen Massar wrote: Andy Davidson wrote: [..] From the RIPE perspective, there are seven empty /32s between my /32 and the next allocation. I imagine this is fully intentional, and allows the NCC to grow my v6 address pool, without growing my footprint in the v6 routing table. That is exactly what it is for. Then again, if you actually had *PLANNED* your address space like you are supposed to when you make a request you could have already calculated how much address space you really needed and then justify it to the $RIR. In case you have to go back to ask the $RIR for more you already made a mistake while doing the initial request... With respect, Jeroen, because I did *PLAN* (your emphasis) our organisational requirements, this is precisely the reason why I think it's significant that a lot of space was left unallocated following my allocation. My RIR only asked me to *PLAN* two years in advance (see ripe-414 [footnote 0]), though prudent organisations may plan for longer. I thought it was significant (and good) to note that they are allow me room to grow sometime after that period. If you offer the sweeping statement that anyone who ever needs to go back to the RIR for more space has made a 'mistake' with their requirement planning shows you're only thinking in an incredibly short term manner. Unless, of course, you are only used to working in companies which do not grow. :-) --- [0] #[IPv6 ALLOCATION USAGE PLAN]# % % When will you use this address space? % % Subnet Within Within Within % size (/nn) 3 months 1 year 2 years Purpose subnet: subnet:
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: Can I read from this that you never actually read any of the $RIR policy documentation about getting IPv6 address space even though you did request a /32 before, clearly without thinking about it? I never requested IPv6 space personally. I work with routing, not with LIR administration. I also know that RIR people don't work with routing, and it shows. new as in We already have one, but we actually didn't really know what we where requesting, now we need more We got our current block in 2000 (or earlier, I don't know for sure, but 2000 at the latest). So yes, we didn't know what we were doing back then. Then again, I'd say nobody knew back then. That is exactly what it is for. Then again, if you actually had *PLANNED* your address space like you are supposed to when you make a request you could have already calculated how much address space you really needed and then justify it to the $RIR. In case you have to go back to ask the $RIR for more you already made a mistake while doing the initial request... The world tends to change in 7 years. You seem to like bashing people for not knowing future policy and changes 7 year ahead of time, which I think it quite sad. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /56 for home sites, /48 for business sites billing considerations (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: Mohacsi Janos wrote: [..] In my opinion there is two type of users as usually ISP services are marketed: 1. Home user - not really interested in configuration of their devices - they just want Internet (now IPv4, soon IPv4 and IPv6) connectivity: They generaly don't use more than one LAN internally. All their devices are connected either directly to ISP device or to the home-gateway purchased at the cornet. In this case the /64 with autoconfiguration is the best option. User don't have to configure anything (may be enabling IPv6 on their computers). This would force these places to: a) use bridging to get that single /64 onto their network thus making firewalling really difficult. I am not quite sure. My colleague tested NetScreen box with /64 advertised from LNS. It seems to be working. b) get a 'power users' abo, which would thus make people have to PAY for getting more IP addresses. They aready do it. In Hungary, if you are home user you can have 1 single IPv4 address. If you are a business customer, then your can have an address space allocated from your provider. You pay more if you need bigger address block Best Regards,
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
On 19 dec 2007, at 16:16, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: I'd say that the huge address space makes life impossible for scanning worms. That doesn't mean that there can be no successful scanning at all with IPv6, but it needs to be highly targeted if you want results the same year, so just pumping random numbers in the destination address field like SQL slammer did so successfully doesn't cut it in IPv6. Just so we're all thinking about it; the issue isn't the size of the address space, it's the sparseness of populated addresses. That won't *necessarily* always be true. Well, if you can scan the whole space (at 15 kpps 80 hours for the entire IPv4 space although with random generation it's going to take longer than that) sparseness isn't a huge issue. If you can't scan the whole space (at 15 kpps 7.1 x 10^26 years for the entire IPv6 space) then sparseness becomes a consideration. But I still don't see how random scanning is going to do you much good: either so few IPv6 hosts are vulnerable that scanning for them isn't worth the time, or so many that if you can scrape some IPv6 addresses from the web you can infect those and they'll infect all the networks they connect to (scanning a LAN locally is easy).
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 19 dec 2007, at 16:16, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: I'd say that the huge address space makes life impossible for scanning worms. That doesn't mean that there can be no successful scanning at all with IPv6, but it needs to be highly targeted if you want results the same year, so just pumping random numbers in the destination address field like SQL slammer did so successfully doesn't cut it in IPv6. Just so we're all thinking about it; the issue isn't the size of the address space, it's the sparseness of populated addresses. That won't *necessarily* always be true. Well, if you can scan the whole space (at 15 kpps 80 hours for the entire IPv4 space although with random generation it's going to take longer than that) sparseness isn't a huge issue. If you can't scan the whole space (at 15 kpps 7.1 x 10^26 years for the entire IPv6 space) then sparseness becomes a consideration. But I still don't see how random scanning is going to do you much good: either so few IPv6 hosts are vulnerable that scanning for them isn't worth the time, or so many that if you can scrape some IPv6 addresses from the web you can infect those and they'll infect all the networks they connect to (scanning a LAN locally is easy). Agreed. LAN scanning is bigger problem. I usually emphasize this point in my IPv6 security presentations: If you can compromise a single system - You are inside! Then LAN scanning is possible. Thus security of the systems and applications will become more important in the future! Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
On 19 dec 2007, at 13:09, Andy Davidson wrote: On 19 Dec 2007, at 11:58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: So, out of our /32, if we assign each customer a /48 we can only support 65k customers. So in order to support millions of customers, we need a new allocation and I would really like for each new subnet allocated to be very much larger so we in the forseeable future don't need to get a newer one. So for larger ISPs with millions of customers, next step after /32 should be /20 (or in that neighborhood). Does RIPE/ARIN policy conform to this, so we don't end up with ISPs themselves having tens of aggregates (we don't need to drive the default free FIB more than what's really needed). RIPE has been giving out _extremely_ large IPv6 blocks on occasion. I'm sure that the other RIRs will also give you a bigger block than / 32 if you expect to need more than that, so please don't limit what you give to your customers. From the RIPE perspective, there are seven empty /32s between my / 32 and the next allocation. I imagine this is fully intentional, and allows the NCC to grow my v6 address pool, without growing my footprint in the v6 routing table. Unfortunately, they do this without there being a community-supported policy in place. IPv4 experience also shows that people rarely merge the adjoining space with the existing block when they get the extra space. So all this does is fragment the address space and make prefix length filters harder. This is really a very bad policy.
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:28:35 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin Oberman wrote: [..] Note that sixxs only deals with commercial providers. Many (most?) of the major research and education networks around the globe have done IPv6 in production for years. That includes ESnet, DREN, NREN and Internet2 in the US, CAnet in Canada, Geant/Dante in Europe and a number of national networks in Asia. Which is a well know fact and who have quite a limited set of end-sites who can actually connect to them, that is why these are not listed. Similarly it doesn't list hosting providers either, enabling a colo to do IPv6 should be childs play, getting it to the enduser though... ;) I was not complaining. I just wanted to be sure that people were aware that thee are a LOT of users (including large numbers of researchers, educators, and especially students connected to IPv6 capable nets. That said, while we provide IPv6 services You provide services and access, but which places are actually enabled to use it? That the network is there is one thing, this is the easy part, linking up the end-sites is the hard one. Actually, for ESnet, due to an government mandate, most end sites carry or very soon will carry IPv6. This still does not mean the end users are likely to use it or that there will be much traffic. The end sites tend to NOT talk to each other. the only exception is a couple of research facilities that use IPv6, but that still amounts to an immeasurably small amount of traffic over 10G links. Perhaps the single biggest issue with making web service IPv6 enabled is that doing so almost invariably leads to a drop in total access due to brokenness in the IPv6 Internet as well as applications that don't do the right thing way too often. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 pgpU3NnPh3Z1h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
On Dec 19, 2007 5:03 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: new as in We already have one, but we actually didn't really know what we where requesting, now we need more We got our current block in 2000 (or earlier, I don't know for sure, but 2000 at the latest). So yes, we didn't know what we were doing back then. Then again, I'd say nobody knew back then. I'd say it's fair to bet that quite a few folks in all regions pursued ipv6 allocations more than 3-5 years ago when the policy was essentially '/32 per provider, simply show a business plan for providing services to 200+ customers in the next N years' (without much in the way of planning or proof-of-planning). That is exactly what it is for. Then again, if you actually had *PLANNED* your address space like you are supposed to when you make a request you could have already calculated how much address space you really needed and then justify it to the $RIR. In case you have to go back to ask the $RIR for more you already made a mistake while doing the initial request... The world tends to change in 7 years. You seem to like bashing people for not knowing future policy and changes 7 year ahead of time, which I think it quite sad. in the case of allocation policy for ipv6 things have changed significantly in the last 2-3 years certainly. It's probably also important to look further in the future than the current RIR policy decision process requires. ARIN/RIPE (atleast) have a 2 year planning horizon for LIR allocations, this isn't sufficient for ipv6 which is supposed to last significantly longer and be as limited in prefix/entity as possible. Some large providers are attempting to plan 5-10 years out for address policy if possible, not everyone has that luxury, but in the end we (internet routing community) want limited prefixes/org that means planning horizons have to be adjusted up from 2yrs to something else. -Chris
Re: /56 for home sites, /48 for business sites billing considerations (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
On Dec 19, 2007 6:19 AM, Mohacsi Janos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: b) get a 'power users' abo, which would thus make people have to PAY for getting more IP addresses. They aready do it. In Hungary, if you are home user you can have 1 single IPv4 address. If you are a business customer, then your can have an address space allocated from your provider. You pay more if you need bigger address block also for Comcast and Cox (I believe) in the US and Verizon (I know) you aren't paying for 'ip addresses' but for 'management of/change-request-for ip addresses'... which is a scam since in any of these cases they update their 'radius' server (dhcp/radius/blah) once and everything's done. hurah!
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: [..] The world tends to change in 7 years. You seem to like bashing people for not knowing future policy and changes 7 year ahead of time, which I think it quite sad. Not intended that way. What I was really surprised, and critical, of though is you mentioning that you say So, out of our /32, if we assign each customer a /48 we can only support 65k customers. So in order to support millions of customers, we need a new allocation, which I read as We got a /32 recently, but never thought that we should give /48's to endsites. Changes the interpretation quite a bit. But even in 2000 the policy was and still is: /128 for really a single device /64 if you know for sure that only one single subnet will ever be allocated. /48 for every other case (smart bet, should be used per default) As such, if you have near 60k customers then you should already have realized that you needed more than a /32, especially as you can then also guess that in a couple of years it will be quite a bit more. For the longer term, I guess 7 years might fall into that by now, thus if you got a /32 in 2000 and you had 10k customers then you should be fine. If you already had 200k customers or so and then only requested a /32 though I think one can definitely state you made a big booboo. Andy Davidson wrote: [..] With respect, Jeroen, because I did *PLAN* (your emphasis) our organisational requirements, this is precisely the reason why I think it's significant that a lot of space was left unallocated following my allocation. Correct, that is a good thing. My RIR only asked me to *PLAN* two years in advance (see ripe-414 [footnote 0]), though prudent organisations may plan for longer. I thought it was significant (and good) to note that they are allow me room to grow sometime after that period. Nothing wrong there indeed and you should indeed at least plan for two years and probably more, when adding HD ratio and some prospects one should easily come up with a pretty good ballpark figure of clients that you will be having. Unless you will suddenly in a year grow by 60k clients (might happen) or really insanely with other large amounts your initial planning should hold up for quite some while If you offer the sweeping statement that anyone who ever needs to go back to the RIR for more space has made a 'mistake' with their requirement planning shows you're only thinking in an incredibly short term manner. Unless, of course, you are only used to working in companies which do not grow. :-) As mentioned above, not the way I intended it to mean. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: /56 for home sites, /48 for business sites billing considerations (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
Mohacsi Janos wrote: This would force these places to: a) use bridging to get that single /64 onto their network thus making firewalling really difficult. I am not quite sure. My colleague tested NetScreen box with /64 advertised from LNS. It seems to be working. If you are routing the /64, thus that it exists entirely on the clien-side, then it should work, but if you are allocating 1 single /64 to the customer, and eg keeping ::1 as the ISP side, then you have to do weird magic to make that work. b) get a 'power users' abo, which would thus make people have to PAY for getting more IP addresses. They aready do it. In Hungary, if you are home user you can have 1 single IPv4 address. If you are a business customer, then your can have an address space allocated from your provider. You pay more if you need bigger address block That is IPv4 and seems to be the case in general for IPv4. That mentality needs to be stopped for IPv6. When an ISP is not going to provide /48's to endusers then RIPE NCC should revoke the IPv6 prefix they received as they are not following the reasons why they received the prefix for. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
Christopher Morrow wrote: On Dec 19, 2007 5:03 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: new as in We already have one, but we actually didn't really know what we where requesting, now we need more We got our current block in 2000 (or earlier, I don't know for sure, but 2000 at the latest). So yes, we didn't know what we were doing back then. Then again, I'd say nobody knew back then. I'd say it's fair to bet that quite a few folks in all regions pursued ipv6 allocations more than 3-5 years ago when the policy was essentially '/32 per provider, simply show a business plan for providing services to 200+ customers in the next N years' (without much in the way of planning or proof-of-planning). HD ratio and all related documentations have existed for quite some time already. If they would have read the docs they would have understood what it meant and also gotten the reason why they asked for the 200+ rule in the first place. [..] Some large providers are attempting to plan 5-10 years out for address policy if possible, not everyone has that luxury, but in the end we (internet routing community) want limited prefixes/org that means planning horizons have to be adjusted up from 2yrs to something else. I can fully agree with this and it is definitely something that one might want to push into the RIRs. I actually hope that most ISP's do realize that they might become a bit larger in a few years, fortunately there is the 7 adjacent /32's that can be used for sizing up quite a bit. The only thing then is to hope that only the aggregate ends up in BGP. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: you got a /32 in 2000 and you had 10k customers then you should be fine. If you already had 200k customers or so and then only requested a /32 though I think one can definitely state you made a big booboo. From what I have been told by my colleagues, we actually received a /35 back then and the requirement was to have 200 end users, otherwise you basically couldn't receive a PA at all. This was then converted into a /32 at a later date, I guess due to a change in policy. So my wondering is basically, if we say we have millions of end users right now and we want to give them a /56 each, and this is no problem, then the policy is correct. We might not have them all IPv6 activated in 2 years which is the RIR planning horizon. I do concur with other posters here that the planning horizon for IPv6 should be longer than three years so we get fewer prefixes in the DFZ as a whole. Then again, *RIR people don't care about routing so I am still sceptical about that being taken into account. you will be having. Unless you will suddenly in a year grow by 60k clients (might happen) or really insanely with other large amounts your initial planning should hold up for quite some while We grow by much more than 60k a year, it's just hard to plan for it. If we project for the highest amount of growth then we're most likely wasteful (in the case of IPv4 space anyway), if we project for lowest amount of growth then we get DFZ glut. We would also like to do regional IPv6 address planning since we're too often in the habit of (without much notice for the operational people) selling off part of the business. Then again, with a /32 we can support ~16 million residential end-users with /56 each, which I guess will be enough for a while. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
So my wondering is basically, if we say we have millions of end users right now and we want to give them a /56 each, and this is no problem, then the policy is correct. We might not have them all IPv6 activated in 2 years which is the RIR planning horizon. I do concur with other posters here that the planning horizon for IPv6 should be longer than three years so we get fewer prefixes in the DFZ as a whole. Then again, *RIR people don't care about routing so I am still sceptical about that being taken into account. So... I need to ask for some clarification here. What, exactly, do you mean by RIR people? Do you mean the staff at the RIR? In that case, you're right, sort of. They care about following the policies set by their respective constituent communities. In the case of ARIN, this would be essentially anyone who cares to participate. However, if people who care about routing choose to participate (which they seem to vigorously in ARIN), then, their views will be reflected in policy as a result (they certainly are, at least to some extent in the ARIN policies). Do you mean the RIR Boards, Advisory Councils, or other representative governing bodies? In that case, you're also partially right. They care about representing their community of users and the best fiduciary interests of the RIR. I don't know about the structure of the other RIRs, but, at least in the case of ARIN, the Advisory Council is definitely primarily concerned with shaping policy according to the consensus of the constituent community and the board is concerned with insuring that the AC is following the correct processes in policy adoption and the fiduciary best interests of ARIN as an organization. Do you mean the RIR end users and customers who receive address resources from the RIRs? In that case, I think, actually that most of them care a great deal about routing. Note, in these statements, I am speaking only as an individual, and, not as someone who was recently elected to a future term on the ARIN AC or on behalf of the AC in any way. you will be having. Unless you will suddenly in a year grow by 60k clients (might happen) or really insanely with other large amounts your initial planning should hold up for quite some while We grow by much more than 60k a year, it's just hard to plan for it. If we project for the highest amount of growth then we're most likely wasteful (in the case of IPv4 space anyway), if we project for lowest amount of growth then we get DFZ glut. IPv6 needs a much longer time horizon than IPv4 in my opinion. If nothing else, I would say that you should be able to project your addressing needs for the next two years at least in the ball-park of continuing your previous growth trends. If you added 100k customers last year and 80k customers the year before, then, I think it's reasonable, especially in IPv6, to plan for 125k customer adds next year and 150k customer adds the following year. If you're figures turn out to be excessive, then, in two years when you'd normally have to apply for more space (I'd like to see this move to more like 5 for IPv6), you can skip that application until you catch up. No real problem for anyone in that case. We would also like to do regional IPv6 address planning since we're too often in the habit of (without much notice for the operational people) selling off part of the business. Heh... Then you should force the new owners to renumber. Then again, with a /32 we can support ~16 million residential end- users with /56 each, which I guess will be enough for a while. So split the difference and ask for a /28. Personally, I think /56s are plenty for most residential users. I'm a pretty serious residential end-user, and, I can't imagine I'd need more than a /56 in terms of address planning. However, I have a /48 because that's the smallest direct assignment available for my multihomed end-site. Owen
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Owen DeLong wrote: Do you mean the staff at the RIR? Do you mean the RIR Boards, Advisory Councils, or other representative governing bodies? Both these. The few times I have ventured to start emailing on a policy wg emailing list, I have gotten the notion that people who habit these have no idea about operational reality of running an ISP. They also expect suggestions in a form that is quite academic and one that most likely nobody actually working operationally at an ISP will be able to produce (I found the email reply to me from Jeroen Massar to be right on the money what I expect in this context). Yes, I understand that if your life is to run an RIR, it's frustrating to have to interact with people that don't even use the correct terms and separate between allocations, delegations and assignments. IPv6 needs a much longer time horizon than IPv4 in my opinion. If nothing else, I would say that you should be able to project your addressing needs for the next two years at least in the ball-park of continuing your previous growth trends. If you added 100k customers last year and 80k customers the year before, then, I think it's reasonable, especially in IPv6, to plan for 125k customer adds next year and 150k customer adds the following year. Yes, so why does the RIRs still ask for a 2 year planning horizon for IPv6? Why isn't this 5 or 10 years? If we have plenty of addresses and hand out a /28 for each AS number present on the internet right now, that would be equivalent to each AS supporting 270M /56 customers but we would still only have used up /15 of the IPv6 address space. We would though have fairly well have made sure that more than 99% of ISPs will only ever need a single IPv6 PA block, hopefully making DFZ glut less in 10-15 years. If you're figures turn out to be excessive, then, in two years when you'd normally have to apply for more space (I'd like to see this move to more like 5 for IPv6), you can skip that application until you catch up. No real problem for anyone in that case. I don't want anyone to apply for more space later as this would normally mean a second route. If everybody needs to do this, then we'll add 40k routes to DFZ without any good reason. So split the difference and ask for a /28. Personally, I think /56s are plenty for most residential users. I'm a pretty serious residential end-user, and, I can't imagine I'd need more than a /56 in terms of address planning. However, I have a /48 because that's the smallest direct assignment available for my multihomed end-site. I agree, but with current policy, asking for a /28 means (afaik) that I have to claim to have 270M /56 customers in 2-5 years. That's a pretty bold statement. But I guess that we can just keep only telling lies to the RIRs to get our addresses, which has been the standard workaround. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?)
But even in 2000 the policy was and still is: /128 for really a single device /64 if you know for sure that only one single subnet will ever be allocated. /48 for every other case (smart bet, should be used per default) I believe this policy is changing. The new text is: End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). RIPE Policy Proposal 2005-08 was accepted in November. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html Andras
Using RIR info to determine geographic location...
Is this becoming a more common or less common practice as we slide ourselves into the last week of 2007? The reason I am wondering is we have noticed some 'issues' recently where correct info in the RIR causes very inefficient and sometimes annoying interaction with some of the world's largest online applications (such as Google) lets say for example that a customer in India purchases dedicated server or Co-Location hosting at a HSP in the United States [very common]. So the RIR shows that the customer is in India, so when the customer interacts with any google applications google automatically directs this traffic to google.in (or the India version of whichever app) More unfortunate than this fact, is the fact that it appears that services and application providers such as google are caching RIR data for an unknown amount of time. Which means that if a service provider SWIPs an allocation to a customer (lets use the same example... again in India) (say a /24) to a user, and then that user subsequently returns that allocation and the service provider re-allocates in smaller blocks to different customers in say /29, /28.. et cetera... the problems related to this issue are compounded (30 customers being affected, instead of one...) by this caching... Obviously providing RIR information is the responsibility of service providers (it is even ARIN's policy) has anyone else in the community ran into issues such as this and found solutions or workarounds? Happy holidays to all on NANOG :D Thanks, -Drew
Re: Using RIR info to determine geographic location...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this becoming a more common or less common practice as we slide ourselves into the last week of 2007? The reason I am wondering is we have noticed some 'issues' recently where correct info in the RIR causes very inefficient and sometimes annoying interaction with some of the world's largest online applications (such as Google) lets say for example that a customer in India purchases dedicated server or Co-Location hosting at a HSP in the United States [very common]. So the RIR shows that the customer is in India, so when the customer interacts with any google applications google automatically directs this traffic to google.in (or the India version of whichever app) Welcome to my world. :-) In pursuing investigations of criminal activity on the net, we generally have to revert to good old fashioned elbow-grease (and using your noodle) instead of automated geo-location tools for exactly this reason -- they are more more irrelevant for determining the real location of an endpoint. $.02, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHadd+q1pz9mNUZTMRAiJ8AJ44SViYTXi6ee5GNLwnzEIZ5VfphQCg6ik7 ABYpXO+8bMDjoRQFMaB8rFs= =ZvFM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
v6 subnet size for DSL leased line customers
Disclaimer: I'm still very much an IPv6 wussie... :-) - But even in 2000 the policy was and still is: /128 for really a single device /64 if you know for sure that only one single subnet will ever be allocated. /48 for every other case (smart bet, should be used per default) -- I work on a network with 100K+ DSL folks and 200+ leased line customers, plus some other stuff. The leased line customers are increasing dramatically. I should plan for a /64 for every DSL customer and a /48 for every leased line customer I expect over the next 5-7 years? scott
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL leased line customers
I work on a network with 100K+ DSL folks and 200+ leased line customers, plus some other stuff. The leased line customers are increasing dramatically. I should plan for a /64 for every DSL customer and a /48 for every leased line customer I expect over the next 5-7 years? why not a /56 by default for both, and give them an opportunity to justify more? a /64 is a bit old-think unless you are having cost issues getting your space from above. randy
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL leased line customers
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I work on a network with 100K+ DSL folks and 200+ leased line customers, plus some other stuff. The leased line customers are increasing dramatically. I should plan for a /64 for every DSL customer and a /48 for every leased line customer I expect over the next 5-7 years? why not a /56 by default for both, and give them an opportunity to justify more? a /64 is a bit old-think unless you are having cost issues getting your space from above. --- Honestly, the space is so big for each block size I don't see why not pick the middle between the two and have all blocks be the same size. Either type of customer here in Hawaii probably won't get close to using that many addresses. Would I get any other benefit from all blocks being the same size? scott
Re: Using RIR info to determine geographic location...
At 08:44 PM 19-12-07 -0500, Drew Weaver wrote: I too would be interested to know how others feel about the various geo-location services available to speed things along. Three that come to mind are Akamai, Neustar/Ultradns and the roll your own Cisco GSS 4492R. How do they stack up? How good are the various Maxmind files? Thanks, Hank Is this becoming a more common or less common practice as we slide ourselves into the last week of 2007? The reason I am wondering is we have noticed some 'issues' recently where correct info in the RIR causes very inefficient and sometimes annoying interaction with some of the world's largest online applications (such as Google) lets say for example that a customer in India purchases dedicated server or Co-Location hosting at a HSP in the United States [very common]. So the RIR shows that the customer is in India, so when the customer interacts with any google applications google automatically directs this traffic to google.in (or the India version of whichever app) More unfortunate than this fact, is the fact that it appears that services and application providers such as google are caching RIR data for an unknown amount of time. Which means that if a service provider SWIPs an allocation to a customer (lets use the same example... again in India) (say a /24) to a user, and then that user subsequently returns that allocation and the service provider re-allocates in smaller blocks to different customers in say /29, /28.. et cetera... the problems related to this issue are compounded (30 customers being affected, instead of one...) by this caching... Obviously providing RIR information is the responsibility of service providers (it is even ARIN's policy) has anyone else in the community ran into issues such as this and found solutions or workarounds? Happy holidays to all on NANOG :D Thanks, -Drew
