On 11/1/10 9:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
Hi, almost everytime I open my laptop it gets a different ip address,
sometimes I'm home and it gets that same
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then stopped paying?
He'd lose his ASN. What do I win?
-r
On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then
Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Uh, no... You're misreading it.
Yes - I read the ISP bit, not the end user bit.
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
randy
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Karl Auer wrote:
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
$1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
the population would consider that prohibitive but I'm guessing that
even
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Karl Auer wrote:
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
$1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
the population would consider
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
randy
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees. The $100/year I was already paying for my other resources
covers it,
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then stopped paying?
Regards,
-drc
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Interesting... I guess controlling your own internet fate hasn't been a
priority for the companies where you've worked. Not one of my clients
or the companies I have worked for has even given a second thought
to approving the cost of
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
It's not a one size fits all situation.
Right. There are folks who are more than happy (in fact demand) to pay the
RIRs for PI space and pay their ISPs to get that space routed. There are
(probably) folks who are perfectly happy with PA and accept
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Nathan
On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Currently, most
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be
On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4bc01459-b53a-4b2c-b75b-47d89550d...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message e22a56b3-68f1-4a75-a091-e416800c4...@delong.com, Owen =
DeLong write
s:
=20
Which is
What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be
re-assembled
into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48
identified
a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that
What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be
re-assembled
into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48
identified
a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that
ship
In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
a
On Oct 24, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There are some folks (like
On 10/24/2010 5:05 AM, George Bonser wrote:
And speaking of changing MTU, is there any reason why private exchanges
shouldn't support jumbo frames? Is there any reason nowadays that things
that are ethernet end to end can't be MTU 9000 instead of 1500? It
certainly would improve performance
In a message written on Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:09:28AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
variety of tags/tunnels/etc by the time it gets to the cell phone. It
cracks me up that SONET interfaces default 4470, and ethernet still
defaults to 1500. I've yet to see an MTU option in standard circuit
I've had pretty good luck asking for higher MTU's on both customer and
peering links. I'd say about an 80% success rate for dedicated
GigE's.
It's generally not on the forms though, and sometimes you get what I
consider weird responses. For instance I know several providers who
won't
Coming across Phil Dykstra's paper from 1999 is what got me thinking
about it (well, that and moving a lot of data between Europe and the
West coast of the US).
http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/jumbo.html
http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/
Found more good information here:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
routers
are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really,
On Oct 23, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
routers
are created
Amen!
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
is make it work like IPv4.
I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig
Stateless autoconfig works very well, It would be just perfect if the
network boundary was configurable (like say /64 if you really want it,
or
/80 - /96 for the rest of us)
Why do you feel it's a poor decision to assign /64's to individual LANs?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
Amen!
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
is make it
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
The design of IPv6 is that DHCPv6 and RA work together. This is why
there is no method to express the default gateway using DHCPv6, that
task is handled by the RA. I suppose you could run DHCPv6 on a subnet
to give hosts addresses but never give them a default gateway, but
that would be a little
In a message written on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:25:18PM +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
There isn't a method to specify a default gateway in DHCPv6. Some
people want it, however it seems a bit pointless to me if you're going
to have RAs announcing M/O bits anyway - you may as well use those RAs
to
On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
feater told the rest of the group He's an operator and thus doesn't
understand how any of this works, ignore
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
feater told the rest of the group
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:10:08 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 03:48 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
An RA is single, periodic, in the order of 100s of seconds, multicast
packet. If you're arguing against the cost of that, then I think you're
being a bit too precious with your packets.
Just to be clear on this: I was taking issue solely
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all routers
are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really, since you
have to use high for everything in any reasonable deployment...)
Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
really bad for the internet.
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same customer.
That same customer is also
On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses from
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes
this is used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice?
IMHO, no.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200
Graham Beneke gra...@apolix.co.za wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za, Graham Beneke writes:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes th
is is used
For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style
space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as
the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central
authority (who knows why, but with that much address space nobody
really cares).
People may
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style
space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as
the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central
authority (who knows why, but with that
Sorry for the double post. From re-reading the thread it doesn't
sound like you might want ULA at all.
The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
box, and not having to re-configure systems when you change ISP
doesn't exist in IPv6. There is no IPv6 NAT (yet).
If you
I guess my point is that as soon as you introduced the human element
into ULA with no accountability, it became a lost cause. People can't
be trusted to respect the RFC once they know it's non-routed address
space, and I suspect most won't. Just like countless vendors still
use 1.1.1.1 as a
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Sorry for the double post. From re-reading the thread it doesn't
sound like you might want ULA at all.
The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
box, and not having to re-configure systems when you change ISP
See... You're falling into the same elitist mindset that I was trapped
in a year ago.
Perception is a powerful thing. And Joe IT guy at Mom and Pop dot com
(who's network experience involves setting up a Linksys at home) loves
his magical NAT box firewall appliance. Over the last year I've been
One thing to keep in mind is that your IPv6 router and IP router can
be completely different devices. There is no need to forklift your
firewall or current setup if you can easily add an IPv6 router to the
network.
Using multiple ISPs is still something that is a bit tricky. A lot of
people
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:26 AM
To: Ray Soucy
Cc: NANOG list
If you're using IPv4 with multiple providers giving you different NAT
pools, then, you're looking at outbound, not inbound resiliency and
the DNS
Mark Smith expunged
(na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org):
ULAs should never and are prohibited from appearing in the global route table
The problem with this statement is that everyone thinks their own table isn't
the Global Routing Table.
-Steve
From: Ray Soucy
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:49 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
See... You're falling into the same elitist mindset that I was trapped
in a year ago.
Perception is a powerful thing. And Joe IT guy at Mom
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 14:19 -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
We've decided to disable SLAAC (State-Less Address Auto-Configuration)
on almost all our IPv6 networks and use DHCPv6 exclusively. This
allows us to only respond with DHCPv6 to the hosts we want to get an
IPv6 address instead of enabling it
I think you're misunderstanding how DHCPv6 works. Don't think of it
like DHCP that you're used to.
DHCPv6 requires an IPv6 router advertisement to work. There are three
flags of interest in a router advertisement.
One of them is the A (autonomous) flag which is enabled by default
in almost
Also,
Keep in mind that DHCPv6 uses a DUID for host identification and not a
MAC address.
Here is an example ISC DHCPd configuration for an IPv6 network without
open pool allocation (it will only respond for hosts in the config).
# subnet6 for each network
subnet6 FD00:1234:5678:9ABC::/64 {
And since someone asked me for it off-list, example PACL for IOS to
filter RAs and DHCPv6 server traffic on incoming ports:
On each switch:
ipv6 access-list RA_Guard
deny icmp any any router-advertisement
deny udp any eq 547 any eq 546
permit any any
end
And on each switchport:
ipv6
In message e22a56b3-68f1-4a75-a091-e416800c4...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
really bad for the internet.
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public
In message 859028c2-9ed9-43ff-aaf9-6e2574048...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message 4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za, Graham Beneke writes:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 01:46 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If your big enough to get your own GUA and have the dollars to get
it routed then do that. If you are forced to use PA (think home
networks) then having a ULA prefix as well is a good thing.
home network: 2620:0:930::/48
In Oz it
On 10/21/2010 5:56 PM, George Bonser wrote:
How does your application on the host decide which address to use when
sourcing an outbound connection if you have two different subnets that
are globally routable?
Many systems generally will go with the closest source address bitwise
to the
Auer [mailto:ka...@biplane.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 10:00 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 01:46 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If your big enough to get your own GUA and have the dollars to get
it routed then do
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Where does the 6K come from?
AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the Associate Member
Fee (AUD 675) and the IP Resource Application Fee (AUD 3,500)
Then AUD1180 for a /48 each year.
Er - apologies. Yes, the initial fee covers
: Friday, 22 October 2010 10:48 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Where does the 6K come from?
AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the Associate Member
Fee (AUD 675) and the IP Resource
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Allen Smith wrote:
Hi All,
I've inherited a small network with a couple of Internet connections through
different providers, I'll call them Slow and Fast.
We use RFC 1918 space internally and have a pair of external firewalls that
handle NAT and such.
Due
In message 5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee0b14c...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com,
George Bonser writes:
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:16 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
=20
IPv4 think.
=20
You don't re-address you add a new
In Oz it costs real money to get IPv6 address space from the RIR
(APNIC). Around AUD$6K in the first year, around AUD$1100 each year
thereafter.
Your /48, according to the ARIN website, cost you US$625 this year,
will
cost US$937.50 next year, and $1250 every year thereafter.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote:
Justification aside, it is quote affordable for a typical power user.
For large values of affordable.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Using multiple ISPs is still something that is a bit tricky. A lot of
people have gotten used to the Dual-WAN Firewall appliance boxes that
accept connections from two ISPs and handle the failover, depending on
NAT to maintain the functionality of the Internal network.
Larger organizations
They *will* fight you, and tell you to your face that if you want to
take NAT away from them it will be from their cold dead hands.
And it isn't NAT in and of itself that is attractive. Those people
aren't talking about static NAT where you are just translating the
network prefix. They
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message e22a56b3-68f1-4a75-a091-e416800c4...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
really bad for the internet.
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large
(Response inline).
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
We've decided to disable SLAAC (State-Less Address Auto-Configuration)
on almost all our IPv6 networks and use DHCPv6 exclusively. This
Ouch... Sounds painful.
Really? I don't know. Maybe as a
I keep hearing this and it never makes sense to me.
If your provider will assign you a static /48, then, you have stable
addresses when your provider link is down in GUA. Who needs ULA?
You used the word if. Reverse the sense of the if and see if
it still doesn't makes sense to use ULA
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Where does the 6K come from?
AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the Associate Member
Fee (AUD 675) and the IP Resource Application Fee (AUD 3,500)
Then AUD1180 for a /48 each
In message 3d230c80-e7cc-4b73-9e47-780df5fa3...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Where does the 6K come from?
AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the Associate Member
Fee
In message 4bc01459-b53a-4b2c-b75b-47d89550d...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message e22a56b3-68f1-4a75-a091-e416800c4...@delong.com, Owen =
DeLong write
s:
=20
Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses an
fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number:
fc00::/7 ? Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local
communication. They are routable only within a set
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:48:47 -0700
Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
IPv6 newbie
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses
an fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number:
fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local
Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
examples? I'd be curious as to what they say regarding why they haven't
followed the pseudo random number requirement.
Use something like fd00::1234, or incorporate
something like the interface's MAC address into the
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
IPv6 newbie
these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to be
globally unique.
The ULA /48s are hoped to only be globally unique, but this only has
a good chance of happening
if all users
Hi Jeroen,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses an
fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number:
fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local
Deepak Jain wrote:
According to the RFC:
3.2.1. Locally Assigned Global IDs
Locally assigned Global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random
algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. Section 3.2.2 describes a
Global ID in this case means the 40 bit pseudo random thing. The point here
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:39:19 -0400
Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
examples? I'd be curious as to what they say regarding why they haven't
followed the pseudo random number requirement.
Use something like
In message aanlktikxiibdh-3pggkagxpu9ky0oyx-gczsq8ajf...@mail.gmail.com, Jame
s Hess writes:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
IPv6 newbie
these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to b
e
globally unique.
The ULA
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Deepak Jain wrote:
According to the RFC:
3.2.1. Locally Assigned Global IDs
Locally assigned Global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random
algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. Section 3.2.2 describes a
Global ID in this case
Or just have the CPE generate a ULA prefix correctly and write it
to NVRAM so you don't need to re-generate it. The internal prefix
/ addresses *WILL* leak. We know this from our experiences with
RFC 1918 addresses. Any CPE vendor that fails to generate random
ULA prefixes should be
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:39:19 -0400
Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
examples? I'd be curious as to what they say regarding why they haven't
followed the pseudo random number
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:07:57 -0500
James Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
IPv6 newbie
these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to be
globally unique.
The ULA /48s are hoped to only be
Hi Owen,
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:51:11 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:39:19 -0400
Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
examples? I'd be
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
I am trying to set up a local IPv6 network and am curious why all the
examples I come accross do not seem to use the 40-bit pseudorandom number?
What should I do? Use something like fd00::1234, or incorporate something
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:46:34 -0700
Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0500
James Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses
from provider #1 and PA
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:50:06 -0700
Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/20/2010 7:27 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
* Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
because of NATs s/b because certain parties refused to
* Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
I would dearly love to see SCTP take off. There are so many great potential
applications for that protocol that it can boggle. Any type of connection
between two things that
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:11 +1100
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4cbfa9bb.9030...@matthew.at, Matthew Kaufman writes:
ULA + PA can have the same problems, especially if your ULA is
inter-organization ULA, which was one of the cases under discussion.
Which still isn't a
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:12:11 -0700
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
* Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
I would dearly love to see SCTP take off. There are so many great potential
applications for
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.
You assume that
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200
Graham Beneke gra...@apolix.co.za wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple
On 10/20/10 9:44 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
someone out with a collision. By then
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:44:40 +0800
Adrian Chadd adr...@creative.net.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to
100 matches
Mail list logo
