Hey Eric,
I did not see anyone else post this, but the NANOG BCOP (Best Current
Operating Practices) group has released the following document to help
guide new IPv6 allocation plans which you and others may find helpful:
http://bcop.nanog.org/images/6/62/BCOP-IPv6_Subnetting.pdf
Another useful d
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 30, 2015, at 18:07 , William Herrin wrote:
>> How about this: when Verizon starts decommissioning its IPv4
>> infrastructure on the basis that IPv6 is widespread enough to no
>> longer require the expense of dual-stack, IPv6 will
On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:37 , Owen DeLong wrote:
> /48 for all customer sites is not at all unreasonable and is fully supported
> by ARIN policy.
>Where Bill is correct is that some customers may have more than one site. The
>official
>policy definition of a site is a single building or structur
Hi Baldur,
* Baldur Norddahl
> On 1 February 2015 at 20:10, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
> > - Tunneling moves the original layer-4 header into another
> > encapsulation layer, so e.g. an ACL attempting to match an IPv6
> > HTTP packet using something like "next-header tcp, dst port 80"
> > wi
On 1 February 2015 at 20:10, Tore Anderson wrote:
> - Tunneling moves the original layer-4 header into another
> encapsulation layer, so e.g. an ACL attempting to match an IPv6 HTTP
> packet using something like "next-header tcp, dst port 80" will not
> work. With translation, it will.
>
B
* William Herrin
> T-Mobile uses something called 464XLAT. Don't let the "translation"
> part fool you: it's a tunnel. IPv4 in one side, IPv4 out the other.
464XLAT is not a tunnel. Protocol translation is substantially
different from tunneling. With tunneling, the original layer-3 header
is kept
> Worse, IPv6's promises are falling one by one. You saw an example in
> this thread: Eric wants to break up his announcements for traffic
> engineering purposes because, as it turns out, one announcement per
> ISP isn't actually enough, Registry practices aren't the primary
> drivers behind routi
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Kabel Deutschland, T-Mobile USA, and Facebook are examples of companies
> who have already or are in the process of moving their network
> infrastructure to IPv6-only. Without going bust.
Hi Tore,
T-Mobile uses something called 464XLAT. Don
Den 30/01/2015 21.23 skrev "Tore Anderson" :
> Kabel Deutschland, T-Mobile USA, and Facebook are examples of companies
> who have already or are in the process of moving their network
> infrastructure to IPv6-only. Without going bust.
Assuming larger service providers are using MPLS in some form,
On 1/30/15 8:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
>
>> It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't
>> want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6. Is that
>> true?
>> (I'm getting that from the spamming comments ma
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:48 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:07:25 -0500, William Herrin said:
>
>> How about this: when Verizon starts decommissioning its IPv4
>> infrastructure on the basis that IPv6 is widespread enough to no
>> longer require the expense of dual-stack, IPv6 will have achi
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 18:07 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I guess it depends on your definition of ubiquitous, but to me, when a
>> protocol
>> has the majority of the deployed addresses, I think it counts for this
>> purpose.
>
> LOL, Owe
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:07:25 -0500, William Herrin said:
> How about this: when Verizon starts decommissioning its IPv4
> infrastructure on the basis that IPv6 is widespread enough to no
> longer require the expense of dual-stack, IPv6 will have achieved
> ubiquity.
Using that logic, what does Ve
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I guess it depends on your definition of ubiquitous, but to me, when a
> protocol
> has the majority of the deployed addresses, I think it counts for this
> purpose.
LOL, Owen, IPv6 had that with the first /64 ethernet LAN it was used on.
H
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 09:39 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> * William Herrin
>>
>>> Plan on dual-stacking any network which requires
>>> access to IPv4 resources such as the public Internet.
>>
>> For many folks, that's easier said than do
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:51 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Eric Louie wrote:
>> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
>> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Good luck with that. Personally, I'd be inclin
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:12 , Karsten Elfenbein
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2015-01-30 0:28 GMT+01:00 Eric Louie :
>> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
>> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
>> /38 for larger regions on an even (/37) boundary
>> /39 for
And, we're in sort of the same predicament - I have no choice on the
current infrastructure but to run IPv4. IPv6 is a service we would like to
start to offer to new customers in this current infrastructure. And to
existing customers who believe that they have the need for IPv6 and have
the equip
We are talking about different things. If your business is servers, do
whatever you want. If you are in the business of selling internet, which
quite a few are on this mailinglist, you need to be dual stack.
We are dual stack towards our customers. On our internal network we are
single stack - ipv
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
If you assign a customer IPv6 space only, a translation mechanism is
needed to allow that customer to reach Internet destinations that only
speak IPv4 today. There's no way around that.
What IPv6 to IPv4 translation mechanisms are available for networks
> On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Eric Louie wrote:
>
> If I have to do 6-to-4 conversion, is there any way to do that with
> multiple diverse ISP connections, or am I "restricted" to using one
> entry/exit point? (If that's true, do I need to allocate a separate block
> of addresses that would be
Hi,
I would not recommend to run any nat over protocol versions for
clients as you would need to break DNSsec.
The clients creating connections should run dual-stack or dual-stack lite.
The only useful thing for service providers would be to proxy/nat lets
say an incoming IPv6 connection to still
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
>
> It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't
>> want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6. Is that
>> true?
>> (I'm getting that from the spammi
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't
want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6. Is that true?
(I'm getting that from the spamming comments made by others) Am I
supposed to be asking ARIN for a /32 for
* Baldur Norddahl
> Single stacking on IPv6 is nice in theory. In practice it just doesn't work
> yet. If you as an ISP tried to force all your customers to be IPv6 single
> stack, you would go bust.
Kabel Deutschland, T-Mobile USA, and Facebook are examples of companies
who have already or are i
I'm just beginning to grasp the concepts of IPv6 operations here, so please
pardon my seeming ignorance.
If I'm reading properly, the best common practice (at least the original)
was allocating a minimum /48 to customers, though I did see one that
referenced a /56.
If I do everything on nibble bo
Single stacking on IPv6 is nice in theory. In practice it just doesn't work
yet. If you as an ISP tried to force all your customers to be IPv6 single
stack, you would go bust.
Therefore the only option is dual stack. The IPv4 can be private address
space with carrier NAT - but you will need to giv
* Mel Beckman
>Um, haven't you heard that we are out of IPv4 addresses? The point
> of IPv6 is to expand address space so that the Internet can keep
> growing. Maybe you don't want to grow with it, but most people do.
> Eventually IPv4 will be dropped and the Internet will be IPv6-only.
> Dual
Eric Louie writes:
> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
> /38 for larger regions on an even (/37) boundary
> /39 for smaller regions on an even (/38) boundary
You really really really don't want to subnet on non
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * William Herrin
>
>> Plan on dual-stacking any network which requires
>> access to IPv4 resources such as the public Internet.
>
> For many folks, that's easier said than done.
>
> Think about it: If everyone could just dual-stack their net
Tore,
Um, haven't you heard that we are out of IPv4 addresses? The point of IPv6
is to expand address space so that the Internet can keep growing. Maybe you
don't want to grow with it, but most people do. Eventually IPv4 will be dropped
and the Internet will be IPv6-only. Dual-stack is just
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Tore Anderson wrote:
For many folks, that's easier said than done.
Think about it: If everyone could just dual-stack their networks, they
might as well single-stack them on IPv4 instead; there would be no
point whatsoever in transitioning to IPv6 for anyone.
I re-read thi
* William Herrin
> nat64/nat46 - allows an IPv6-only host to interact in limited ways
> with IPv4-only hosts. Don't go down this rabbit hole. This will
> probably be useful in the waning days of IPv4 when folks are
> dismantling their IPv4 networks but for now the corner cases will
> drive you nut
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Eric Louie wrote:
> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
Hi Eric,
Good luck with that. Personally, I'd be inclined to think that some
customers will (reasonably) want more than a /4
Hi,
2015-01-30 0:28 GMT+01:00 Eric Louie :
> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
> /38 for larger regions on an even (/37) boundary
> /39 for smaller regions on an even (/38) boundary
> A few /48's for "internal use
I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
/48 for customers universally and uniformly
/38 for larger regions on an even (/37) boundary
/39 for smaller regions on an even (/38) boundary
A few /48's for "internal use" to allow us to monitor and maintain systems.
For se
36 matches
Mail list logo
