On 4-Feb-2009, at 22:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
I see people predicting that giving everybody a /56 is insane and
will blow out routing tables. I don't quite understand that; at the
regional ISP with which I am most familiar 40,000 or so internal/
c
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
I see people predicting that giving everybody a /56 is insane and will
blow out routing tables. I don't quite understand that; at the regional
ISP with which I am most familiar 40,000 or so internal/customer routes
in BGP, and I have not noticed anything fa
On 4-Feb-2009, at 19:05, Roger Marquis wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a
different set of address
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>We already know some will need more than a /48. /48 was
>only ever described as meeting the requirements of *most*
>business and consumers.
>
so.. what businesses need is not actually 'more than one /48' but
real, u
On 4-Feb-2009, at 16:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet,
just an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL
& Cable modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
All the advice I have heard about ad
--On onsdag, onsdag 4 feb 2009 19.02.56 -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore"
wrote:
> Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand each
> cable modem a /64?
Telia got their /20 based on calculations where they give every customer a
/48. Every apartment in every highrise gets 2^16 n
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <20090205030522.13d152b2...@mx5.roble.com>, Roger Marquis
> writes:
> > Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
> > > the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
>
Apologies if this message is brief, it is sent from my cellphone.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nathan Ward
On 5/02/2009, at 16:58, Chris Adams wrote:
Since NAT == stateful firewall with packet mangling, it would be much
easier to drop the packet mangling and just use a stateful firewall.
Y
Hi folks,
Does anyone know any kind of super-secret back door number for Verizon
FIOS tech support for people-with-a-clue? I can hear the drool
hitting the keyboard on the other end of the line and the confusion in
the voice of the support rep when I try to get help with turning up a
"business"
I am told that juniper have just released their E series code to do
hitless failover and ipv6cp at the same time.
If you are not running hitless it has been working for some time.
Apologies if this message is brief, it is sent from my cellphone.
On 5/02/2009, at 17:29, Matthew Moyle-Croft
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they think
if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a firewall.
NAT provides some security, often enough to make a firewall unnecessary.
It all depends on what's inside the edge device. But r
Hmm,
Apologies for that - wasn't meant to goto the list. Was a bit "frank".
MMC
On 05/02/2009, at 2:59 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Hi James,
I don't think anyone really has done it large scale properly.
I've had basically nothing from anyone.
Given my knowledge of where most large BRAS
Hi James,
I don't think anyone really has done it large scale properly.
I've had basically nothing from anyone.
Given my knowledge of where most large BRAS/Cable vendors are upto - I
don't think anyone could have. (Cisco won't have high end v6 pppoe
support until late this year!).
There'
Hello Matthew , See way below ...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Scott Howard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
but my point was that people are starting to assume that v6
Once upon a time, Roger Marquis said:
> * NAT advantage #5: it does not require replacement security measures to
> protect against netscans, portscans, broadcasts (particularly microsoft
> netbios), and other malicious inbound traffic.
Since NAT == stateful firewall with packet mangling, it wo
In message <20090205030522.13d152b2...@mx5.roble.com>, Roger Marquis writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
> > the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
> > renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a
> >
>> All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
>> the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
>> renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a
>> different set of addresses at that point. You should plan
>> accordingly.
>
>Exactly the
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew
Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means that I have a problem w
On 5/02/2009, at 3:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
TJ wrote:
No, we should hand each home a /56 (or perhaps a /48, for the
purists out
there) - allowing for multiple segments (aka subnet, aka links,
etc.).
If there are, say, 250-500 million broadband services in the world
(probably more)
>Has anyone done some analysis of what this might look like? Especially
with growth etc.
Sure, probably lots of people lots of times.
Off the top of my head, using some current/common allocations sizes:
Current "Global Unicast" space --> 2000::/3
An "average" RIR --> /12
a
Mark Andrews wrote:
All IPv6 address assignments are leases. Whether you get
the address from a RIR, LIR or ISP. The lease may not be
renewed when it next falls due. You may get assigned a
different set of addresses at that point. You should plan
accord
TJ wrote:
However, many do not "have" DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not capable.
Also - does DHCPv6 currently have an option for prefix length? Just asking.
I'm under no allusion that a /64 is going to be optional - it's really
too late which is sad. I think people have just latched o
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:35:15 -0500, James R. Cutler
wrote:
Clarification here:
1/8 was never on the EDS backbone. Was only used locally in one site,
as far as I can determine.
They might have done that for other customers as well. (to avoid 10/8
collisions.) Personally, I'd think if th
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew
Moyle-Croft wrote:
> My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6
> means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
> This means that I have a problem with routing table siz
TJ wrote:
No, we should hand each home a /56 (or perhaps a /48, for the purists out
there) - allowing for multiple segments (aka subnet, aka links, etc.).
If there are, say, 250-500 million broadband services in the world
(probably more) then, if every ISP followed best practise for IPv6
addr
>My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6
>means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
>This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have to
>implement that.
Then work with them to break them of this dis-illusion.
>
TJ wrote:
>> Some devices will refuse to work if you subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes,
>> poorly designed, etc.)
>
> Actually, no - not poorly designed. The spec says it must be a /64
> (excluding those starting with 000 binary) so that is what devices
> (rightfully) expect. Ref: http://tools.
>Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
>of problems.
Perhaps, time moves ever forward.
>A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6). Setting
>the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own statically
is
>insane and will blow out provider'
On 5/02/2009, at 2:35 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
What happens when a customer wants to run multiple networks is
something I
haven't seen answered yet - with NAT it's easy, but as I said, NAT is
apparently evil...
You give them more than a /64.
RFC4291 says that it should be a /48, but people
Scott Howard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
but my point was that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean
static allocations for all customers.
By design IPv6 should mean _less_
In message , Scott
Howard writes:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
> > IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable modem,
> > then we may very well be recreating the
>Some devices will refuse to work if you subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes,
>poorly designed, etc.)
Actually, no - not poorly designed. The spec says it must be a /64 (excluding
those starting with 000 binary) so that is what devices (rightfully) expect.
Ref: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used
>>> one trillion IP addresses.
>>
>> Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536 "networks"
>> (each network being a /64). Presuming that ISPs a
-- m...@internode.com.au wrote:
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft
Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of PD?
If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter drop in a
park. Especially interested in CPE etc.
-
In message <498a40c1.8060...@internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
>
>
> Anthony Roberts wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
> > prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
> > then delegate chunks out
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Well, it is static, but like most static IP services offerd by an ISP,
if you leave you can't take your addresses with you. Even with DSL from
AT&T if you move locations you get a different subnet.
The issue is multiple POPs in a geographic region where customers could
On 5/02/2009, at 2:35 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they
think
if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a
firewall.
A *lot* of these problems we face are conceptual rather than
technological.
For more, refer t
On 5/02/2009, at 2:28 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise
all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it
is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being cl
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
> IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable modem,
> then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
v4 just gets a single IP addr
Clarification here:
1/8 was never on the EDS backbone. Was only used locally in one site,
as far as I can determine.
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8
for
over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a numbe
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <498a3ca5.6060...@internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
>> Anthony Roberts wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
>>> wrote:
>>>
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems.
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
>
> Anthony Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
>> prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
>> then delegate chunks out of that.
>>
> My apologies for not being clear:
>
In message <498a3ca5.6060...@internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
> Anthony Roberts wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
> >> of problems. A /64 isn't needed n
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being clear:
As I posted just before in reply to MarkA - I'm ho
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> What I was hoping for (even though I'm testing something that I know
> won't work) is that I can break something so I could push v4 traffic
> over a v6-only core.
>
> Is there _any_ way to do this (other than NAT/tunnel etc)?
If you can push
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:41:01 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
> And ARP tables are propogated around networks? No, they're local to a
> router.
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
Mark Andrews wrote:
Assign the prefixes using PD and use aggregate routes out side of the pop.
IPv6 nodes are designed to be renumbered. Use the technology. Stop thinking
IPv4 and start thinking IPv6. IPv6 is not just IPv4 with bigger addresses.
Currently with v4 I have one (majority
Anthony Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll stil
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
>
> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
> of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
their stuff behind a fi
In message <498a3514.1050...@internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > And before anyone says "there are 281474976710656 /48s!", just
> > remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
> > bet when someone said "four-point-two BILL
> I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for
> over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a number of universities
> and supercomputing facilities number nodes out of 1/8 -- however, those
> systems are never supposed to see the internet anyway, so they could
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:56:44 -0800, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM,
> Anthony Roberts wrote:
>
>> It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address
space
>> to play with (eg 10/8), they start doing things like using bits in the
>> address as flags for thing
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And before anyone says "there are 281474976710656 /48s!", just
remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
bet when someone said "four-point-two BILLION addresses", someone else
said "no $...@#%'ing way we will EVER use THAT many"
Let's
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
>>> each cable modem a /64?
>>
>>
>> That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
>> discussi
> > IPv4-style utilization ratios do make some sense under IPv6, but not
> > at the
> > address level - only at the network level.
>
> First, it was (mostly) a joke.
>
> Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
> each cable modem a /64?
>
At the least. Some would sa
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
each cable modem a /64?
That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm not an IS
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one
>>> trillion IP addresses.
>>
>> Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivale
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used
one
trillion IP addresses.
Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536
"networks" (each
network be
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Anthony Roberts wrote:
> It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address space
> to play with (eg 10/8), they start doing things like using bits in the
> address as flags for things. Suddenly you find yourself using a prefix
> that should enough
--On onsdag, onsdag 4 feb 2009 17.44.20 -0500 Ricky Beam
wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:29:36 -0500, Skeeve Stevens
> wrote:
>> I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote
>> it?
>
> I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for
> over a de
Steven Crandell wrote:
> I'm a long time BIND user and recent convert to PowerDNS.
> I considered BIND-DLZ briefly but found that I wasn't excited about the DB
> retro-fit on a piece of software that was previously very much meant to live
> in the world of flat files.
> My initial intent was to try
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:29:36 -0500, Skeeve Stevens
wrote:
I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote
it?
I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for
over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a number of universities
and superco
I'm a long time BIND user and recent convert to PowerDNS.
I considered BIND-DLZ briefly but found that I wasn't excited about the DB
retro-fit on a piece of software that was previously very much meant to live
in the world of flat files.
My initial intent was to try PowerDNS first and then give BIN
We developed our own PHP / MySQL system that holds all the records
before writing out zonefiles and updates to BIND. We've been using it
for several years and it works well :)
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://
64 matches
Mail list logo
