On Sun, 23 Dec 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 dec 2007, at 21:23, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
IPv6 documents seem to assume
that because auto-discovery on a LAN uses a /64, you always have to
use a /64 global-scope subnet. I don't see any technical issues that
require this though. I
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> There plenty of organisation who has a dedicated team/person for
> network management (routers, switches etc.), while another
> team/person for system management (dhcp, servers etc.). So
> configuring DHCPv6 requires cooperation which takes time, but users
> are complaining
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:24:32AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> First of all, there's RFC 3513:
>
> For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
> 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
> constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.
Ahhh, thank
* Joe Greco:
>> Right now, we might say "wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
>> hogwash!" and in years to come, "wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
>> thinking!?"
>
> Well, what's the likelihood of the "only 256 subnets" problem?
There's a tendency to move away from (simulated) shared
Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ahhh, thanks - that is the only thing I have ever seen that gives any
> reason for the /64 prefix. Sadly, the document contains no
> compelling technical reasons for it - looks like it's done just so
> things are easy when generating interface IDs fr
On 19 Dec 2007, at 21:31, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[...]
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.
They received the prefix because they had a plan. That'
Once upon a time, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> Right now, we might say "wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
> >> hogwash!" and in years to come, "wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
> >> thinking!?"
> >
> > Well, what's the likelihood of the "only 256 subnets" problem?
>
Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2007, at 21:31, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 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.
>
> They received the pr
-- On Sun, 12/23/07, Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Date: Sunday, December 23, 2007, 2:21 PM
> Once upon a time, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > >>
> There is a huge detent at /48, but there's a certain amount of guidance
> that can only be derived from operational experience. It's not clear to
> me why /56 would be unacceptable, particularly if you're delegating them
> to a device that already has a /64. Are one's customers attached via
> po
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:54:34 -0500
Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:24:32AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > First of all, there's RFC 3513:
> >
> > For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
> > 000, Interface IDs are r
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:46:26 +0100
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Joe Greco:
>
> >> Right now, we might say "wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
> >> hogwash!" and in years to come, "wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
> >> thinking!?"
> >
> > Well, what's the likelih
> Once upon a time, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >> Right now, we might say "wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
> > >> hogwash!" and in years to come, "wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
> > >> thinking!?"
> > >
> > > Well, what's the likelihood of the "only 256 subnets
> If operational simplicity of fixed length node addressing is a
> technical reason, then I think it is a compelling one. If you've ever
> done any reasonable amount of work with Novell's IPX (or other fixed
> length node addressing layer 3 protocols (mainly all of them except
> IPv4!)) you'll kno
>I think we got here when "site-local" went away - we've effectively
>redefined link-local to mean "site-local," while using globally unique
>addressing.
site-local was replaced with ULA. Have you got your ULA yet? :-)
ULA gives you /48's.
6to4 gives you /48's.
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:26:12 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If operational simplicity of fixed length node addressing is a
> > technical reason, then I think it is a compelling one. If you've ever
> > done any reasonable amount of work with Novell's IPX (or other fixed
> > l
> There's a tendency to move away from (simulated) shared media networks.
> "One host per subnet" might become the norm.
and, with multiple addresses per interface, the home user surely _might_
need a /32.
might does not make right
randy
> > > I think Ethernet is also another example of the benefits of
> > > spending/"wasting" address space on operational convenience - who needs
> > > 46/47 bits for unicast addressing on a single layer 2 network!? If I
> > > recall correctly from bits and pieces I've read about early Ethernet,
> >
> and trying to keep 50k machines updated with proper resolvers (in the
> simplest example) is easier with RA than DHCP how?
do you really mean skip RA or all of autoconf?
i want to explore RA(only) + DHCP, to save me from running a routing
protocol or vsrp to have redundant exits for a LAN.
ra
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:27:55 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think Ethernet is also another example of the benefits of
> > > > spending/"wasting" address space on operational convenience - who needs
> > > > 46/47 bits for unicast addressing on a single layer 2 network!?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:58:44 +0900
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There's a tendency to move away from (simulated) shared media networks.
> > "One host per subnet" might become the norm.
>
> and, with multiple addresses per interface, the home user surely _might_
> need a /32.
>
> > MAC address allocations are paid for by the Ethernet chipset/card vendor.
> >
> > They're not paid for by an ISP, or by any other Ethernet end-user, except
> > as a pass-through, and therefore it's considered a fixed cost. There are
> > no RIR fees, and there is no justification. You buy a
On Dec 23, 2007 8:44 PM, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and trying to keep 50k machines updated with proper resolvers (in the
> > simplest example) is easier with RA than DHCP how?
>
> do you really mean skip RA or all of autoconf?
I think what makes sense is to use the parts of ipv6 t
Joe Greco wrote:
>> There is a huge detent at /48, but there's a certain amount of guidance
>> that can only be derived from operational experience. It's not clear to
>> me why /56 would be unacceptable, particularly if you're delegating them
>> to a device that already has a /64. Are one's custom
24 matches
Mail list logo
