Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 10/10/14, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Baldur Norddahl > >> Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just >> use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the >> hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Some people think the benefi

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I’m sorry, but this argument utterly fails under any form of analysis. I think he's talking about IPv4 - and saying that since he apparently doesn't have the budget for enough IPv4 subnets to address his point-to-point links, he's inclined to

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > On 9 October 2014 23:18, Roland Dobbins wrote: > >> >> On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl >> wrote: >> >>> My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the >> infrastructure. >> >> Your colleagues are wro

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

* Baldur Norddahl > Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just > use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the > hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Why do you need those host routes? Most IPv6 IGPs work just fine wit

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 10 October 2014 00:37, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > > NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using > unnumbered interfaces. > > As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using > private IP addres

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered > interfaces. As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using private IP addresses. And see Section 9. My point is that *analogous* issues

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 23:18, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > > My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the > infrastructure. > > Your colleagues are wrong. Again, see RFC6752. > Yes, for using private IP addressing RFC

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > But all this are customer facing interfaces, which do not really qualify > for "point to point" links. I might consider adding interface addressing > for IPv6, but for me IPv4 was the primary design parameter. Having IPv6 > mirror the IPv4 s

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > I am not dismissing any arguments, and I am genuinely interested in any > advantages and disadvantages to the approach. My prediction is that you will remain an advocate of unnumbered links until such time as you have to troubleshoot issue

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the > infrastructure. Your colleagues are wrong. Again, see RFC6752. > I am wondering if all the nay sayers would not agree that is it better to > have a single public l

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Hi Bill Thanks for you response. About customer routers: For IPv6 that answer is simple. The customer is using us as default gateway and that always uses the IPv6 link local address. He has no need to know the public IPv6 address of the uplink router, so we don't tell him. The link local address

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:49 AM, William Herrin wrote: > 6752 isn't germane; it has to do with using private IP addresses on routers, > which borks things up when the router has to generate an ICMP type 3. I beg to differ, as noted by Owen DeLong in this same thread: On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owe

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

I am sorry if I stepped on something sore. I am not dismissing any arguments, and I am genuinely interested in any advantages and disadvantages to the approach. There is more than one way to design a network and all I am saying is this far it is working great for me. The two disadvantages put forwa

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > >> I am sure there are. Tell me about them. > > This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, many > times over the years. > >

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 22:32, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > > I am sure there are. Tell me about them. > > This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, > many times over the years. > >

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can >> just >>> use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the >>> hassle of coming up with new ad

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > I am sure there are. Tell me about them. This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, many times over the years.

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can > just > > use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the > > hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Same trick works > for > > IPv4 too

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > On 9 October 2014 19:55, Richard Hicks wrote: > >> The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b: >> " *b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured with a >> /126 or /127*" >> > > Why do people assign addresses to point-t

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? It makes remote detection of carrier on the interface as simple as "ping" -Bill -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Syste

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 19:55, Richard Hicks wrote: > The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b: > " *b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured with a > /126 or /127*" > Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loop

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to >> doubt. > > Various controlled compounds have been chemically tagged for years. NFC or > something simil

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Richard Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> "Regardless of the number of hosts on an individual LAN or WAN >> segment, every multi-access network (non-point-to-point) requires at >> least one /64 prefix." >> >> But using /64s on

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Richard Hicks > wrote: > > Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? > > Is there a reason we are ignoring it? > > Hi Richard, > > It's dated (a *lot* about IPv6 has changed since 2011) and a we've > lea

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 8:45 AM, TJ wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a >>> /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 >>> through ARIN and got smacked down. >> >> > Ye

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Richard Hicks wrote: > Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? > Is there a reason we are ignoring it? Hi Richard, It's dated (a *lot* about IPv6 has changed since 2011) and a we've learned enough to know some of the things in there are dubious. For example:

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

t; Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:29:21 PM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out > > Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? > Is there a reason we are ignoring it? > > http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting > >

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Owen DeLong" > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" > Cc: "William Herrin" , nanog@nanog.org > Sent:

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to > doubt. Various controlled compounds have been chemically tagged for years. NFC or something similar is the logical next step (it also holds a lot of promise and imp

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

It’s entirely likely that someone attempted to get a /31 from ARIN recently and they most definitely would have been smacked down, but not because they couldn’t get more than a /32. ARIN will not issue a /31 under current policy, but if you need more than ~48,000 end-sites, you easily qualify for

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to doubt. I think we will see larger network segments, but I think we will also see greater separation of networks into segments along various administrative and/or automatic aggregation boundaries. The virtual topologies y

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 10/9/14 8:45 AM, TJ wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a >>> /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 >>> through ARIN and got smacked down. >> >> > Yes; ISTR sever

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? Is there a reason we are ignoring it? http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting As we recently discovered ARIN is handing out IPv6 allocations on nibble boundaries. Either a /32 or /28 for service providers. A justification and utilization plan

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: >>> Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. >>> >>> 4. Keeping in mind >>> >>>4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be >>>excluded from the global routing table >> >> 4.1a Prefix cutouts of

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: > > Mark Andrews writes: > >> In message <54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com>, Paige Thompson writes: >>> makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per >>> /32 (or something like that), though. >> >> A /32 is the minimum alloc

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Karsten Elfenbein wrote: > Ripe is handing out /29 without any additional documentation > current IPv4 usage documentation should do the trick to request larger > blocks for deployment of /48 to customers And /19s with documentation. Europe will by God not end up

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: > > Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a > > /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 > > through ARIN and got smacked down. > > Yes; ISTR several /20s and even a /19 were the lar

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: > Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a > /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 > through ARIN and got smacked down. Legend has it that the US DOD applied for a /8 - and got sm

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

I've been using /36s per location, but hm -- great question. How easy is it to get a larger allocation anyway? In RIPE, i.e: you just ask and get a /29 with no questions asked. On 10/9/2014 午後 11:31, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. 4. Keeping

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Also, claiming that 90% will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets simply > displays a complete lack of imagination. On the contrary, I believe that the increase in the potential address pool size will lead to much flatter, less hierarchical netw

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in > the future not just traditional routers. I'm expecting every molecule in every compound to have an embedded IPv6 address which can be read via NFC or some similar tec

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

2014-10-09 16:22 GMT+02:00 Daniel Corbe : > Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a > /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 > through ARIN and got smacked down. > > Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the >

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

> > Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. > > > > 4. Keeping in mind > > > > 4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be > > excluded from the global routing table > > 4.1a Prefix cutouts of any size (including /48) from inside your /32 > or la

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Policy allows any ISP (LIR) with need greater than /32 to easily qualify for what they need up to /12. I know of at least two entities that have applied for and with minimal effort and appropriate justification, received /24 allocations and many with /28s. Owen > On Oct 9, 2014, at 07:00,

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Mark Andrews writes: > In message <54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com>, Paige Thompson writes: >> makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per >> /32 (or something like that), though. > > A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers > or will have more

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

In message <54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com>, Paige Thompson writes: > makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per > /32 (or something like that), though. A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers or will have more customers request a bigger bloc

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > So, let me ask the question in a different manner... > What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential > customer (vs a /64). The wisdom/reasoning behind larger allocations is to control the cost of doing busine

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. On 10/09/14 12:29, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <1aa6f1a9-d63b-4066-903d-0e8690c7c...@isi.edu>, manning bill > writes: >> yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

In message <1aa6f1a9-d63b-4066-903d-0e8690c7c...@isi.edu>, manning bill writes: > yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing = > all that dark space, esp. when > virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. > > > /bill > PO Box 12317 > Marina del Rey, CA 9029

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing all that dark space, esp. when virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Give them a /48. T

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 09:46 +0100, Daniel Ankers wrote: > What I realised was that (sticking to best practices) You mean "subnet only on 4-bit boundaries"? Nibble boundaries are nice for human readability, but if there is a good technical reason for other boundaries, you shouldn't shy away from t

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 05:40, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message < > 482678376.131852.1412829159356.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net>, > Faisal Imtiaz writes: > > >Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. > > > > I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

We assign a /128 by DHCPv6 (*). And then we assign a /48 by DHCPv6-PD prefix delegation. To everyone no matter what class of customer they are. You are thinking about it wrong. It is not about what the customer need but about what you need. Do you really have a need to use more than 48 bits for yo

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Owen DeLong wrote: Sadly there are pieces of 3GPP that limit LTE to single /64 already. These should, IMHO, be fixed. DHCPv6-PD is already standardized in 3GPP several years ago, it just hasn't made it widely into equipment out there yet. That's why current "best way" to

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 04:59 +, Peter Rocca wrote: > To paraphrase a post on this list a while ago (my apologies for lack of > reference). > There are two kinds of waste: > - the first kind of waste is providing 'too many' subnets for someone; > - the second kind of waste is leaving the space

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On (2014-10-09 00:37 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote: > Sadly there are pieces of 3GPP that limit LTE to single /64 already. These > should, IMHO, be fixed. According to the national IPv6 residential recommendation 3GPP release 10 offers prefix delegation, which will facilitate this. > > Having routa

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 8, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > Mark, > >>> >Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. > >>> >>> I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or >>> otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? >> >> 256 is *not*

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:54 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2014-10-09 15:25 +1100), Mark Andrews wrote: > > Hi, > >> Because /64 only allows for a single subnet running SLAAC with >> currently defined specifications. > > I fully agree that larger than 64 must be allocation, in mobile internet, > res

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

>> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" >> Cc: "Erik Sundberg" , "NANOG" >> Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:47:01 PM >> Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving >> out > >> Why would you only all

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Stop cringing and give them /48s. It’s really not going to harm anything. Really. Look at the math. That scale of waste is a very very pale glimmer compared to the LAN side of things where you have 18,000,000,000,000,000,000 (and then some) addresses left over after you put a few hundred thousa

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:48 PM, James R Cutler wrote: > On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Erik Sundberg wrote: >> I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure >> out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone >> giving for a default LAN allocatio

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On (2014-10-09 15:25 +1100), Mark Andrews wrote: Hi, > Because /64 only allows for a single subnet running SLAAC with > currently defined specifications. I fully agree that larger than 64 must be allocation, in mobile internet, residental DSL, everywhere. I don't think it will happen, but I thin

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Erik Sundberg wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:09 AM, jamie rishaw wrote: . > These arguments and debates make me sad. I suppose it's my own fault for > assuming that everyone in this ML is a forward thinker. Get used to disappointment.

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:16 AM, jamie rishaw wrote: > (PS If I wake up in the morning and find out that someone has hacked my > CatGenie litter boxes, I will hunt you down). I am sure any hacking will result in taking a dump.

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

(PS If I wake up in the morning and find out that someone has hacked my CatGenie litter boxes, I will hunt you down). "NANOG: From Cat Poo to IPv6, We've Got It Covered" On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:09 AM, jamie rishaw wrote: > This makes no sense. > > I have two /48s routed to my house. > > ..to

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

This makes no sense. I have two /48s routed to my house. ..to my house. The idea that anyone is giving anything less than a 64 is unreasonable and will lead to an exponential growth in routing tables.. it's asinine and very short sighted. Sure, back in the day, I had a server, a couple desktops

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > So, this is more of a 'opinion' / 'feel' (with all due respect) comment, and > not something which has a (presently) compelling technical reasoning behind > it ? Think of something like HIPnet https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grunde

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Mark, >Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number of subnets residences ge

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

gt; Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, FL 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mark Andrews" > > T

RE: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: October-09-14 12:45 AM To: Mark Andrews Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out == > > >Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Faisal, On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > So, this is more of a 'opinion' / 'feel' (with all due respect) comment, and > not something which has a (presently) compelling technical reasoning behind > it ? The technical reasoning behind /48 has been documented in many places. L

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Mark Andrews" > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" > Cc: "Sam Silvester" , "NANOG" > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:40:07

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

In message <482678376.131852.1412829159356.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net>, Faisal Imtiaz writes: > > A /60, /56, /52 or /48 allows the client to run multiple SLAAC > > subnets (16, 256, 4096 or 65536) and to have the reverse ip6.arpa > > zone delegated on a nibble boundary. > > Understood..

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

"Mark Andrews" > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" > Cc: "Sam Silvester" , "NANOG" > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:25:28 AM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out > > > In message > <1627782497.131

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

27;s to residential customers. > Regards. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > - Original Message - > > > From: "Sam Silvester" > > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" > > Cc: "Erik Sundberg" , "NANOG"

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

mtiaz" > To: tagn...@gmail.com > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:14:57 AM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out > > > Fair point > > just as a follow up question... is giving a /64 to a Reside

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

The biggest issue I see with only giving a /64 is that many residential customers may have have two routers, if the modem is not bridged and does not have WiFi. Another issue would be for people who want to use the guest SSID of many routers. With IPv6 I could see each SSID getting a /64.

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

t; To: "Faisal Imtiaz" , nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:16:59 AM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out > > > What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a > > Residential customer (vs a /

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

"Royce Williams" > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" > Cc: "Sam Silvester" , "NANOG" > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:14:51 AM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving > out > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Fai

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

> What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential > customer (vs a /64). What happens when the resident pulls their car into their garage and their car requests a unique /64 so the various computers on the CAN can start syncing with the Internet? Car's media center st

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Like I said, this was my understanding I am glad that it is being > pointed out to be in-correct > > I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any > reason Why NOT > > So, let me ask the question in a differ

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

I am failing to see/ understand ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom - Original Message - > From: "Philip Dorr" > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:54:36 PM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

. > > > Regards > > > Faisal Imtiaz > > > Snappy Internet & Telecom > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Erik Sundberg" < esundb...@nitelusa.com > > > > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > > > Sent:

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

You should probably increase those allocations. Residential & Small Business Customers: /56 Medium & Large size Business Customers: /48 Multi-location Business Customer: /48 per site On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Erik Sundberg wrote: > I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out > our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving > for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing > a c

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

steful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate > . > > Regards > > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > > - Original Message - > > From: "Erik Sundberg" > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

#x27;wasteful' than have to come back to re-number or re-allocate . > > Regards > > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > > - Original Message - > > From: "Erik Sundberg" > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > Sent: Wednesday, Oc

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

sday, October 8, 2014 9:18:16 PM > Subject: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out > > I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out > our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving > for a defaul

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

I'm allocating /64s in /56 boundaries per customer. Allows me to give the client more should they need it without fuss. On 10/9/2014 午前 10:18, Erik Sundberg wrote: I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So w

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Erik Sundberg wrote: > I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out > our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving > for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing > a cust

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Erik, On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:18 PM, Erik Sundberg wrote: > I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) > just makes me cringe at the waste. Don’t cringe. Yeah, a /48 is a crazy amount of space, but that isn’t the resource we are likely to ever need to conserve i

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

There seem to be lots of various opinions still on this subject. What type of customer are you dealing with, what service are they receiving? We are allocating a /64 per customer (VPS / dedicated server / small co-lo) but doing them on /56 boundaries so that we can easily expand their allocation

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Give them a /48. This is IPv6 not IPv4. Take the IPv4 glasses off and put on the IPv6 glasses. Stop constraining your customers because you feel that it is a waste. It is not a waste It will also reduce the number of exceptions you need to process and make over all administration easier.

IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone giving for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea of handing a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me c