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
--- [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 ov
> 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 /5
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 (s
-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
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
> 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
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
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
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,
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
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 rout
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
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
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
> 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
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
eac
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 targete
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 pumpin
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:
T
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 r
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 v
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 L
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
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:
[..
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
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 i
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)
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 ther
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
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 P
31 matches
Mail list logo
