Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Tony Li wrote: > Randy's attitude that vendor's are all unequivocally evil please read what i said, and not what joel, very incorrectly, said what i said. then apologize. randy
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Randy Bush wrote: > Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> equipment makers (as much as randy hates them) > > excuse?!?!? that is unjustified and uncalled for. > > vendors, like everyone else, will do what is in their best interests. > as i am an operator, not a vendor, that is often not what is in my best > interest, marketing literature aside. i believe it benefits the ops > community to be honest when the two do not seem to coincide. If the ops community doesn't provide enough addresses and a way to use them then the vendors will do the same thing they did in v4. It's not clear to me where their needs don't coincide in this case. there are three legs to the tripod network operator user equipment manufacturer They have (or should have) a mutual interest in: Transparent and automatic configuration of devices. The assignment of globally routable addresses to internet connected devices the user having some control over what crosses the boundry between their network and the operators. > randy >
RE: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Yep, it is sure little or no maintenance is being performed. :) John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leigh Porter Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 4:06 PM To: Crawford, Scott Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers LOL.. Yeah, I am on call today - thankfully nothing happened. Anyway, I hope you had a peaceful day! -- Leigh Crawford, Scott wrote: > Well, I guess he told you. :) > > Merry Christmas > Scotte > > -Original Message- > From: "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Leigh Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Sent: 07/12/25 11:48 AM > Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers > > Leigh Porter wrote: > >> Wow, is this what you folks do at Christmas ? >> > > Clearly you yourself are affectionate about this thing called Christmas, > if you are so affectionate about it, then why are you making silly > comments which do not contribute at all to the topic at hand? > Must be very boring that Christmas of yours. > > > On a more operational topic: even during Christmas (that Coca Cola > induced commercialism party that gets attributed to some religion), > people are using the Internet, and stuff breaks on the Internet, as such > there will always be people who have to work on days like this. > > Greets, > Jeroen >
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Joel Jaeggli wrote: > equipment makers (as much as randy hates them) excuse?!?!? that is unjustified and uncalled for. vendors, like everyone else, will do what is in their best interests. as i am an operator, not a vendor, that is often not what is in my best interest, marketing literature aside. i believe it benefits the ops community to be honest when the two do not seem to coincide. randy
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In places where you need tighter control over the usage of various gateways on a common L2 segment, VRRP probably makes more sense. However, as things currently stand, that means static routing configuration on the host since for reasons passing understanding, DHCP6 specifically won't do gateway assignment. For those of us with lots of IPv4 customers dependent on DHCP, it would be good to know more detail about this point. What is the problem, and are there plans to do anything about it in DHCPv6? For most hosts, there is no need for anything like VRRP or getting a default gateway via DHCP in v6 because all hosts are required to implement RA/RS. The vast majority of hosts either have one default gateway or two-plus equivalent ones, so that works fine. For hosts with multiple gateways that are unequal, VRRP+DHCP doesn't solve the problem any better than RA/RS; you have to fiddle with the hosts' routing tables to get things set up right. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
LOL.. Yeah, I am on call today - thankfully nothing happened. Anyway, I hope you had a peaceful day! -- Leigh Crawford, Scott wrote: Well, I guess he told you. :) Merry Christmas Scotte -Original Message- From: "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Leigh Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: 07/12/25 11:48 AM Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Leigh Porter wrote: Wow, is this what you folks do at Christmas ? Clearly you yourself are affectionate about this thing called Christmas, if you are so affectionate about it, then why are you making silly comments which do not contribute at all to the topic at hand? Must be very boring that Christmas of yours. On a more operational topic: even during Christmas (that Coca Cola induced commercialism party that gets attributed to some religion), people are using the Internet, and stuff breaks on the Internet, as such there will always be people who have to work on days like this. Greets, Jeroen
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Leigh Porter wrote: > > > Wow, is this what you folks do at Christmas ? Clearly you yourself are affectionate about this thing called Christmas, if you are so affectionate about it, then why are you making silly comments which do not contribute at all to the topic at hand? Must be very boring that Christmas of yours. On a more operational topic: even during Christmas (that Coca Cola induced commercialism party that gets attributed to some religion), people are using the Internet, and stuff breaks on the Internet, as such there will always be people who have to work on days like this. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Wow, is this what you folks do at Christmas ? -- Leigh Joe Greco wrote: Right... Let's look at this in detail: /48 per customer == 65,536 customers at $2,250 == $0.03433/customer /56 per customer == 16,777,216 customers at $2,250 == $0.00013/customer So, total savings per customer is $0.0342/customer _IF_ you have 16,777,216 customers. On the other hand, sir, for those customers who need more than 256 subnets, we're running the risk of having to assign them multiple noncontiguous prefixes. Okay, here's a problem. You keep making these statements which bear no resemblance to the real world. If I "need more than 256 subnets", and I approach my ISP to ask for such, there are at least two obvious answers which are incredibly more likely than any risk of "assign[ing] them[me] multiple noncontiguous prefixes." Answer 1: "We don't provide more space on your Cableco Cable Modem Service. If you would like, we do offer Cableco Business Class Service." Answer 2: "We can assign you a larger prefix, however, you'll need to power cycle the cable modem and your addresses will change." Remember, this is residential broadband. Saying /no/ is fairly common (in the same way that I can't get custom PTR DNS for a static IP address on a resi connection with many service providers.) Although the cost of doing so is not readily apparent, each router has a limit to the number of prefixes that can be contained in the routing table. Yeah, well, I'm not impressed. As an operator community, we've been so good about getting our own affairs in order there. The cost of upgrading all of our routers later probably far exceeds the $0.03 per customer that we would save. Really, in general, I think that the place to look for per-customer savings opportunities would be in places where we have a potential recovery greater than $0.03 per customer. How about /not/ upgrading all of your routers and keeping the "$0.03 per customer"? This discussion is getting really silly; the fact of the matter is that this /is/ going to happen. To pretend that it isn't is simply naive. How high are your transit&equipment bills again, and how are you exactly charging your customers? ah, not by bandwidth usage, very logical! Perhaps end-user ISP's don't charge by bandwidth usage... True, but, they don't, generally, charge by the address, either. Usually, they charge by the month. If you can't cover $0.03/year/ customer for address space in your monthly fees, then, raise your monthly fee by $0.05. I'm betting your customers won't care. Customers at the low end of the spectrum do in fact care, and my guess would be that they'd rather save the nickel than get extra address space that only 1 in 1,000 of them might ever get around to using. As an enduser I would love to pay the little fee for IP space that the LIR (ISP in ARIN land) pays to the RIR and then simply pay for the bandwidth that I am using + a little margin so that they ISP also earns some bucks and can do writeoffs on equipment and personnel. Sure, but that's mostly fantasyland. The average ISP is going to want to monetize the variables. You want more bandwidth, you pay more. You want more IP's, you pay more. This is one of the reasons some of us are concerned about how IPv6 will /actually/ be deployed ... quite frankly, I would bet that it's a whole lot more likely that an end-user gets assigned a /64 than a /48 as the basic class of service, and charge for additional bits. If we are lucky, we might be able to s/64/56/. I mean, yeah, it'd be great if we could mandate /48 ... but I just can't see it as likely to happen. I'm betting that competition will drive the boundary left without additional fees. After all, if you're only willing to dole out /64s and your competitor is handing out /56 for the same price, then all the customers that want multiple subnets are going to go to your competitor. The ones that want /48s will find a competitor that offers that. Ah! That's good. Now we're making some progress. The first question most businesses have when they're spending money is "how much is it." Not "how much is it on a per-customer basis." If I go and ask for a new $2000 server so that I can put up some neat new thing, such as a reverse-traceroute webserver, the idea is that I should need to justify why it can't be done on an existing webserver. Maybe it can, but maybe it can't (let's say because it'll connect out to our routers and the security risk warrants a separate server). The fact that it might only cost a penny per month per customer is irrelevant to the higher-level analysis. In the same way, if an ISP can avoid spending money, there are almost certainly some who will do so. Since the average customer is likely to be more than adequately served by 256 subnets for the foreseeable future, there will undoubtedly be some that allo
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
> Right... Let's look at this in detail: > > /48 per customer == 65,536 customers at $2,250 == $0.03433/customer > /56 per customer == 16,777,216 customers at $2,250 == $0.00013/customer > > So, total savings per customer is $0.0342/customer _IF_ you have > 16,777,216 customers. On the other hand, sir, for those customers > who need more than 256 subnets, we're running the risk of having > to assign them multiple noncontiguous prefixes. Okay, here's a problem. You keep making these statements which bear no resemblance to the real world. If I "need more than 256 subnets", and I approach my ISP to ask for such, there are at least two obvious answers which are incredibly more likely than any risk of "assign[ing] them[me] multiple noncontiguous prefixes." Answer 1: "We don't provide more space on your Cableco Cable Modem Service. If you would like, we do offer Cableco Business Class Service." Answer 2: "We can assign you a larger prefix, however, you'll need to power cycle the cable modem and your addresses will change." Remember, this is residential broadband. Saying /no/ is fairly common (in the same way that I can't get custom PTR DNS for a static IP address on a resi connection with many service providers.) > Although the cost > of doing so is not readily apparent, each router has a limit to the > number > of prefixes that can be contained in the routing table. Yeah, well, I'm not impressed. As an operator community, we've been so good about getting our own affairs in order there. > The cost of > upgrading all of our routers later probably far exceeds the $0.03 > per customer that we would save. Really, in general, I think that > the place to look for per-customer savings opportunities would > be in places where we have a potential recovery greater than > $0.03 per customer. How about /not/ upgrading all of your routers and keeping the "$0.03 per customer"? > > This discussion is getting really silly; the fact of the matter is > > that > > this /is/ going to happen. To pretend that it isn't is simply naive. > > > >> How high are your transit&equipment bills again, and how are you > >> exactly > >> charging your customers? ah, not by bandwidth usage, very logical! > > > > Perhaps end-user ISP's don't charge by bandwidth usage... > > True, but, they don't, generally, charge by the address, either. > Usually, they charge by the month. If you can't cover $0.03/year/ > customer > for address space in your monthly fees, then, raise your monthly > fee by $0.05. I'm betting your customers won't care. Customers at the low end of the spectrum do in fact care, and my guess would be that they'd rather save the nickel than get extra address space that only 1 in 1,000 of them might ever get around to using. > >> As an enduser I would love to pay the little fee for IP space that > >> the > >> LIR (ISP in ARIN land) pays to the RIR and then simply pay for the > >> bandwidth that I am using + a little margin so that they ISP also > >> earns > >> some bucks and can do writeoffs on equipment and personnel. > > > > Sure, but that's mostly fantasyland. The average ISP is going to > > want to > > monetize the variables. You want more bandwidth, you pay more. You > > want > > more IP's, you pay more. This is one of the reasons some of us are > > concerned about how IPv6 will /actually/ be deployed ... quite > > frankly, > > I would bet that it's a whole lot more likely that an end-user gets > > assigned a /64 than a /48 as the basic class of service, and charge > > for > > additional bits. If we are lucky, we might be able to s/64/56/. > > > > I mean, yeah, it'd be great if we could mandate /48 ... but I just > > can't > > see it as likely to happen. > > I'm betting that competition will drive the boundary left without > additional > fees. After all, if you're only willing to dole out /64s and your > competitor is > handing out /56 for the same price, then all the customers that want > multiple > subnets are going to go to your competitor. The ones that want /48s > will > find a competitor that offers that. Ah! That's good. Now we're making some progress. The first question most businesses have when they're spending money is "how much is it." Not "how much is it on a per-customer basis." If I go and ask for a new $2000 server so that I can put up some neat new thing, such as a reverse-traceroute webserver, the idea is that I should need to justify why it can't be done on an existing webserver. Maybe it can, but maybe it can't (let's say because it'll connect out to our routers and the security risk warrants a separate server). The fact that it might only cost a penny per month per customer is irrelevant to the higher-level analysis. In the same way, if an ISP can avoid spending money, there are almost certainly some who will do so. Since the average customer is likely to be more than adequately served by 256 subnets for the foreseeable future, there will un
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
On 25 dec 2007, at 6:43, Kevin Loch wrote: With router advertisements present you don't need VRRP because you have dead neighbor detection. And that helps the hosts on the same l2 segment that need different gateways how? Or hosts with access to multiple l2 segments with different gateways? In my opinion, having hosts with different default gateways on the same LAN is not the most desirable way to build a network. If you have hosts with multiple interfaces and you want to set routes on those host for stuff that's reachable through a router on the interface that's not talking to the default router, then I agree VRRP would be useful. But again, I would probably try to avoid a setup like that. (Not saying that I'm dead set against the availability of VRRP for IPv6, though.) On 25 dec 2007, at 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: since for reasons passing understanding, DHCP6 specifically won't do gateway assignment. For those of us with lots of IPv4 customers dependent on DHCP, it would be good to know more detail about this point. What is the problem, and are there plans to do anything about it in DHCPv6? It looks like many people working on DHCP for IPv6 favor a model where there is a separation of tasks between RAs and DHCPv6. So one does one thing, the other does something else. No overlap. Now I don't subscribe to that philosophy, because I want my hosts to learn their DNS servers from RAs (and finally we have RFC 5006!) but in this case I agree: there is no good way to make sure that what a DHCP server says is actually working, while a router advertising its own presence obviously does that. Address configuration and everything associated with it is the place where IPv4 and IPv6 are really different, so don't try to copy existing stuff in this area to IPv6 blindly, more often than not that's not the most optimal approach. There are actually some people asking for default gateways in DHCPv6. If this happens, it should be such that a DHCPv6 server can tell you which of the available gateways to prefer, but nothing stronger than that.
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: For some magic reasons though(*), it seems to be completely ludacrist to do it this way, even though it would make the bill very clear and it would charge the right amount for the right things and not some arbitrary number for some other arbitrary things (* = then again I don't have an mba or something like that so I prolly miss out an all kinds of important factors why people have to make it so complex) I don't have an MBA either. However I will note that many european airlines itemise their bills such that external costs (like taxes, shared-resource fees, etc) are seperated out. This practice seems particularly popular with low-cost airlines, as it allows them to advertise rock-bottom fares, where that fare is just the cost they have control of. So there seems to be real-world precedent for your proposal, in one of the tightest-margin and most cost-sensitive industries around. Prettige kerstdagen! regards, -- Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: If you look good and dress well, you don't need a purpose in life. -- Robert Pante, fashion consultant
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
> In places where you need tighter control over the usage of various > gateways > on a common L2 segment, VRRP probably makes more sense. However, > as things currently stand, that means static routing configuration on > the host > since for reasons passing understanding, DHCP6 specifically won't do > gateway assignment. For those of us with lots of IPv4 customers dependent on DHCP, it would be good to know more detail about this point. What is the problem, and are there plans to do anything about it in DHCPv6? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
