On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:27:21PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
I have a feeling that IP addresses will now be used in ways that people
have not envisioned them being used before. Given a surplus of any
resource, people find creative ways of using it.
Encoding high-resolution geographic
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:18 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:27:21PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
I have a feeling that IP addresses will now be used in ways
On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly relevant or convincing
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for IPv6.
It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we haven't
accounted for in some of our current thinking.
Q:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad wrote:
RS,
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we
would use about .25 of the total available IPv6 address space.
Sure. I once did the math that suggested
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our
children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have
99.9% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com writes:
You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our
children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have
99.9% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry
99.9975% that might have been their
proves the fallacy of needing to conserve IPv6
address space
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:r...@seastrom.com]
Sent: 19 October 2010 11:53
To: George Bonser
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
George Bonser gbon
On 10/19/10, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size
Message-
From: Ben Butler [mailto:ben.but...@c2internet.net]
Sent: 19 October 2010 12:26
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
Hi,
Another way of looking at it would be what would the world population need to
be in order to exhaust all of the space v6 based
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are advantages to being able to use 16 bits to build various forms
of hierarchical topology on a dynamic basis within a SOHO environment.
If we reduce that to 8 bits, we will block innovations that are
currently underway in this space.
Can you
On 18/10/10 19:24 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly relevant
On 10/19/2010 4:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking for
larger.
ME: I really need larger space
ARIN: We don't see how you can justify it, and we hardly ever give
larger than /32
THE END
or, if you have larger POPs, start
On 10/19/2010 6:24 AM, Dan White wrote:
But I still feel strongly that a /48 assignment model for residential
customers is right for our environment.
Perfectly reasonable. If you've analyzed your situation and come to that
conclusion who am I to argue? Please note, I'm NOT saying, You must
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:12 PM
To: Franck Martin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On 10/18/2010 3:51 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
So they can't run their own services from home
To: George Bonser
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com writes:
You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our
children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have
99.9% of IPv6
On Oct 19, 2010, at 5:21 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are advantages to being able to use 16 bits to build various forms
of hierarchical topology on a dynamic basis within a SOHO environment.
If we reduce that to 8 bits, we will block innovations that
On 10/19/2010 11:53 AM, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:
HS: Where customers = spammers? The only folks I have seen ask
to do 'address rotation' have either been spammers or copyright
monitoring services. I have never seen a request for 'address rotation'
to protect a
On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/19/2010 4:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking for
larger.
ME: I really need larger space
ARIN: We don't see how you can justify it, and we hardly ever give larger
than
On 10/19/2010 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
When did you ask? If it was more than 6 months ago, then, I would suggest
asking again. If it was less than 6
months ago, can you send me any or all of the correspondence so I can address
it with Leslie and try and
get whatever training issues remain
Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net writes:
Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile,
http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=1587055945
A good companion to Eric's book is Deploying IPv6 Networks
http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=1587052105
: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of
information.
Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should
a
/32, and
if they got one either trade it in or put it in a lab and get a REAL
block.
Tony
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On Oct 18, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
This 'get a /32' BAD ADVICE has got to stop. There are way too many people
trying to force fit their customers into a block that is intended for a
start-up with ZERO customers.
+1
Develop a plan for /48 per customer, then go to ARIN and get
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of
information.
Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks
for that correction
Thanks again especially on a Saturday weekend
On 10/18/2010 11:47 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that in practice.
I recently worked with a customer that has ~60,000 customers
currently. We tried to get a larger block, but were denied. ARIN said
they would only issue a /32, unless immediate usage could be
On 10/18/2010 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
More accurately... A /48 per customer end-site...
Define end0-site. Residential customers, for example, don't need more
than a /56. More would just be obscene. Most small businesses don't need
more than a /56 either, especially if you are breaking
On 10/18/10 10:10 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
More accurately... A /48 per customer end-site...
Define end0-site. Residential customers, for example, don't need more
than a /56.
This is a matter of opinion not gospel. larger, this size, or smaller
a
/32, and
if they got one either trade it in or put it in a lab and get a REAL
block.
Tony
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On Oct 18, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 11:47 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that in practice.
I recently worked with a customer that has ~60,000 customers
currently. We tried to get a larger block, but were denied. ARIN said
they
, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of
information.
Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks
for that correction
Thanks again
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
More accurately... A /48 per customer end-site...
Define end0-site. Residential customers, for example, don't need more than a
/56. More would just be obscene. Most small businesses don't need
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31).
Do they still do that? Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications the
RIRs gave for the /12s they received was that they were going to be using the
'bisection'
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:18 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31).
Do they still do that? Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications
the RIRs gave for the /12s they received was
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
The customers should get /48s. The /56 guideline is merely that and only for
the smallest of sites. It's also subsequently turned out to be bad advice.
Can you elaborate on why /56 is bad advice and
John,
Can you tell us at what degree the bisection stops? i.e. does it keep going
until there are no spaces left, or will you leave some space in between each
one to leave some room for future needs for orgs that already have allocations?
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President, IT
I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their nearest
neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close considering there is a lot
of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and there doesn't seem to be consensus
yet.
For these customers, I don't think they will need more
On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
We're doing /56 for residential users, and have
On 10/18/10 12:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their
nearest neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close
considering there is a lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and
there doesn't seem to be consensus yet.
For these
: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same
Generally the older allocations would be left in place until deprecated by
attrition.
At least that's what I plan to advocate in my policy proposal.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 18, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote:
I have a few customers whose allocations
On 10/18/2010 3:51 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
So they can't run their own services from home and have to request premium
connectivity from you?
Beside the IPv4 scarcity mentality we have the Telco mentality to fight...
Happy days still ahead...
Of course they can run their own services at
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for
IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we
haven't accounted for in some of our current thinking.
Q: Why are /48s everywhere a good idea?
A:
On 10/18/2010 14:39, Doug Barton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for
IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we
haven't accounted for in some of our current thinking.
Q:Why are
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for
IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we
haven't accounted for in
On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their nearest
neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close considering there is a
lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and there doesn't seem to be
consensus yet.
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change
John,
Thank you very much. That clarification helps out quite a bit.
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President, IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (419)739-9240, x1
- Original Message -
On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
We're
Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv writes:
It makes a bigger difference if everyone starts using 6RD - to give
out a /48 effectively requires a /16, and the number of /16s is by
no means approximately infinite.
Don't I know it! Poorly designed protocol, but what're we gonna do?
I was of
RS,
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we
would use about .25 of the total available IPv6 address space.
Sure. I once did the math that suggested that even if you multiplied the
current IPv4
In message 35804bc3-9efe-4ce4-b13a-f2e15c420...@americafree.tv, Marshall Euba
nks writes:
It makes a bigger difference if everyone starts using 6RD - to give out =
a /48 effectively=20
requires a /16, and the number of /16s is by no means approximately =
infinite.=20
Regards
Marshall
-Original Message-
From: Robert E. Seastrom
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:17 PM
To: sth...@nethelp.no
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our
children will surely be grateful
On 10/18/2010 7:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our
children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have
99.9% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry
99.9975% that might have been their
different opinions.
Owen
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sunday, 17 October, 2010 8:58:57 AM
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of
information
Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has
books/articles they recommend on fully
understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN
shortly to request a v6 block.
I'm assuming I would be asking for a /64 being an ISP. But I'd like to read up
as
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has
books/articles they recommend on fully
understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN
shortly to request a v6 block.
I'm assuming I would be
Joel's widget number 2
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:36, Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com wrote:
Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has
books/articles they recommend on fully
understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN
shortly to
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most
cuurent if not helpful information resides.
Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile, as well, in
combination with Schudel Smith's infrastructure
2010 16:09:43 +
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most
cuurent if not helpful information resides.
Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely
@brandontek.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sunday, 17 October, 2010 8:58:57 AM
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of
information.
Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks for that
correction
63 matches
Mail list logo
