:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En
> nombre de John Dupuy
> Enviado el: lunes, 07 de enero de 2008 22:28
> Para: NANOG list
> Asunto: Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?
>
>
> It should probably be pointed out:
>
> Asking for practical advice on choosing /48 vs. /56 on a
>
As much as I don't want to resurrect this conversation again or beat a dead
(now glued) horse: In the SOHO arena, today's NAT users may or may not opt
to use SPI down the road.
Many people just opt for the cheapest working solution and use defaults, so
what we end up depends on what vendors like L
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:53:24 -0500
"William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 11:25 AM, Tim Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Only assuming the nature of your mistake is 'turn it off'.
> >
>
> Do you mean to tell me there's actually such a thing as a network
> engineer
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:17:37 EST, William Herrin said:
> In my ever so humble opinion, IPv6 will not reach significant
> penetration at the customer level until NAT has been thoroughly
> implemented. Corporate information security officers will insist.
> Here's the thing: a stateful non-NAT firewa
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>> > I'd rather push for /48 and have people settle on /56 than push for=20
>> > /56 and have people settle on /64.
>>=20
>> Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries?
>
>Look, why are we arguing about this? Why not split
>the difference? If /48 is too
Tim Franklin wrote:
> On Thu, January 3, 2008 3:17 pm, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> In my ever so humble opinion, IPv6 will not reach significant
>> penetration at the customer level until NAT has been thoroughly
>> implemented. Corporate information security officers will insist.
>> Here's the thi
On Jan 3, 2008 11:25 AM, Tim Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only assuming the nature of your mistake is 'turn it off'.
>
> I can fat-finger a 'port-forward *all* ports to important internal
> server', rather than just '80/TCP' pretty much exactly as easily as I can
> fat-finger 'permit *all
On Thu, January 3, 2008 3:17 pm, William Herrin wrote:
> In my ever so humble opinion, IPv6 will not reach significant
> penetration at the customer level until NAT has been thoroughly
> implemented. Corporate information security officers will insist.
> Here's the thing: a stateful non-NAT firew
Do you really think that today's allocations are going to be in use
(unchanged) when people are building homes out of IPv6-addressed
nanobots, or when people are trying to firewall the fridge from the TV
remote, etc.?
I certainly hope not- but then again I never thought IPv4 would be around
thi
That's 281,474,976,710,656 /48 customer networks. It's 16
million times the number of class C's in the current IPv4
Internet. Am I just not thinking large or long term enough?
No, you are just counting wrong. When you are talking /48's
you are talking "number of bits of of subnet hierarchy", n
On Jan 3, 2008 3:52 AM, Rick Astley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* /32 for ISPs unless they can justify more
> >* /48 for subscribers unless they can justify more
> Take someone like Comcast with ~12 million subscribers.
>
> It would take an IPv6 /24 to get 16.7 million /48's (2^24). With a net
> > I'd rather push for /48 and have people settle on /56 than push for
> > /56 and have people settle on /64.
>
> Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries?
Look, why are we arguing about this? Why not split
the difference? If /48 is too big and /64 is too small,
let's go halfway and use /56,
> Is it even a possibility then? A /48 to everyone means 48
> bits left over for the network portion of the address.
>
> That's 281,474,976,710,656 /48 customer networks. It's 16
> million times the number of class C's in the current IPv4
> Internet. Am I just not thinking large or long term
Once upon a time, Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It leaves them with 65k subnets to choose from. Would a /56 make more
> sense? Right now- sure- becaue we lack the imagination to really guess
> what might happen in the future. Nanobots each with their own address, IP
> connected every
The only place in which people have noted that there is a possibility
of running out of bits in the existing IPv6 addressing hierarchy
is when they look at a model where every residential customer gets
a /48. In that scenario there is a possibility that we might runout
in 50 to 100 years from no
So if /64 is "subnet" rather than "node" then the practice of placing one
and only one node per subnet is pretty wasteful.
The whole point here is flexibility. IEEE defined several standards for
globally unique identifiers including EUI-48/MAC-48 and EUI-64.
MAC-48 should last us til 2100, bu
> > No, it gives them 16 bits for subnetting. Everybody gets
> > 64 bits for addressing because everybody (except oddballs and
> > enevelope pushers) uses a /64 subnet size. Since 64 bits
> are more than
> > anyone could ever possibly need for addressing and 16 bits is more
> > than an end sit
> No, it gives them 16 bits for subnetting. Everybody gets
> 64 bits for addressing because everybody (except oddballs
> and enevelope pushers) uses a /64 subnet size. Since 64
> bits are more than anyone could ever possibly need for
> addressing and 16 bits is more than an end site could ever
>
> So if /64 is "subnet" rather than "node" then the practice of
> placing one and only one node per subnet is pretty wasteful.
In an IPv6 network, a /64 is the subnet prefix of a single
broadcast domain, i.e. a single unbridged Ethernet segment.
Within this subnet, there are many /128s which re
> Now instead what I can do is tag my california routes with a
> "california" bgp community, and export only those specific routes to
> you there. This way your traffic to me in NY will not go over this
> session.
dunno about the community in which you peer. but the big kids have
pretty much in
On Jan 3, 2008 4:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Rick Astley wrote:
>
> > If Bob has a multihomed network, he can't just give one /48 to a
> customer in
> > NY and the next one to a customer in CA unless he wants to fill up
> Internet
> > routing tables w
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Rick Astley wrote:
Some of the comments here have cleared things up a bit.
I suspect we will see NAT doing some 4to6 and 6to4 through migration, but
there is little reason to use NAT in place of stateful firewall in the v6 to
v6 world.
I think RFC3041 (Privacy Extension
On Jan 3, 2008 3:52 AM, Rick Astley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Take someone like Comcast with ~12 million subscribers.
>
> >It would take an IPv6 /24 to get 16.7 million /48's (2^24). With a net
> efficiency of 10% they are going to need to be allocated 120 million /48's.
> It would take a /2
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Rick Astley wrote:
If Bob has a multihomed network, he can't just give one /48 to a customer in
NY and the next one to a customer in CA unless he wants to fill up Internet
routing tables with /48's, so he will have to assign large aggregate blocks
to each region.
Could you
>* /32 for ISPs unless they can justify more
>* /48 for subscribers unless they can justify more
>* /64 when you know for certain that one and only one subnet will ever be
required
>* /128 when you know for certain you're dealing with a single device
>* Sparse allocation so whichever size you choos
Some of the comments here have cleared things up a bit.
I suspect we will see NAT doing some 4to6 and 6to4 through migration, but
there is little reason to use NAT in place of stateful firewall in the v6 to
v6 world.
I think RFC3041 (Privacy Extensions) and RFC4864 (Local Network Protection)
answ
On Dec 31, 2007 3:25 AM, Rick Astley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can understand corporations getting more than a /64 for their needs, but
> certainly this does not mean residential ISP subscribers, right?
Rick,
The standing recommendations are:
* /32 for ISPs unless they can justify more
* /4
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:18:08 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I see there is a long thread on IPv6 address assignment going, and I
> > apologize that I did not read all of it, but I still have some unanswered
> > questions.
>
> Anyways, I suggest you run over and read
>
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joe Greco
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:18 AM
To: Rick Astley
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?
> I see there is a long thread on IPv6 address assign
> I see there is a long thread on IPv6 address assignment going, and I
> apologize that I did not read all of it, but I still have some unanswered
> questions.
The answers to some of this are buried within it.
> I believe someone posted the ARIN recommendation that carriers assign out
> /64's an
Hi,
Rick Astley schrieb:
I see there is a long thread on IPv6 address assignment going, and I
apologize that I did not read all of it, but I still have some
unanswered questions.
The basic problem is, there are no answers, that's why there is this and
similar discussion every 6 months again
> I believe someone posted the ARIN recommendation that
> carriers assign out /64's and /56's, and in a few limited cases, /48.
>
> I can understand corporations getting more than a /64 for
> their needs, but certainly this does not mean residential ISP
> subscribers, right?
Then you misunde
I see there is a long thread on IPv6 address assignment going, and I
apologize that I did not read all of it, but I still have some unanswered
questions.
I believe someone posted the ARIN recommendation that carriers assign out
/64's and /56's, and in a few limited cases, /48.
I can understand co
33 matches
Mail list logo
