Daniel Senie wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>> For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
>>
>> What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
>
> If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space
> cover? (If we as a species manages to
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> 1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
> 2) ping sweep of death
...
> For most people, using /127's will be a lot operationaly easier then
> maintain those crazy ACLs, but, like I said before, YMMV..
I'm in the /112 camp - it's not g
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Dale W. Carder wrote:
::
:: On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
::
:: > you face 2 major issues with not using /127 for
:: > PtP-type circuits:
:: >
:: > 1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
:: >
:: > Let's say you put 2001:db8::0/64 and 2001:db8::1/
- Original Message
From: Dale W. Carder dwcar...@wisc.edu
On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> you face 2 major issues with not using /127 for
> PtP-type circuits:
>
>> 1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
> Following this, IPv4 /30 would have the same problem vs
On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
you face 2 major issues with not using /127 for
PtP-type circuits:
1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
Let's say you put 2001:db8::0/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 on a PtP
interface, and somebody comes along and ping floods
:: > If a worst-case situation arises, and you have to peer with a device that
:: > doesn't properly support /127's, you can always fall back to using /126's
:: > or even /64's on those few links (this is why we reserved a /64 for every
:: > link from the begining)..
::
:: If this is the case,
On 28/01/2010, at 1:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
largest of organisations.
>>> That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks
>>> to
> -Original Message-
> From: Grzegorz Janoszka [mailto:grzeg...@janoszka.pl]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:10
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
>
> On 27-1-2010 2:16, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> > ip address x.x.x.x
On 1/27/2010 5:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
of organisations.
the general intent of a class B allocation i
On 27-1-2010 2:16, Steve Bertrand wrote:
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252
ipv6 address 2607:F118:x:x::/64 eui-64
ipv6 nd suppress-ra
ipv6 ospf 1 area 0.0.0.0
I've found that this setup, in conjunction with iBGP peering between
loopback /128's works well.
When OSPFv3 goes down and you
On 1/26/2010 23:32, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> A minor data point to this, Linux looks to be implementing the
> subnet-router anycast address when IPv6 forwarding is enabled, as it's
> specifying Solicited-Node multicast address membership for the
> all zeros node address in it's MLD announcements when
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:26:34 +1100
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Randy Bush writes:
> > >>> the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
> > >>> for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
> > >>> largest of organisations.
> > >> That would,
In message , Randy Bush writes:
> >>> the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
> >>> for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
> >>> largest of organisations.
> >> That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks
> >> to assign.
>>> the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
>>> for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the
>>> largest of organisations.
>> That would, indeed, work if we weren't short of class B networks
>> to assign.
> Would you clarify? Seriously?
we used to
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:08:36 +1030
Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:09:11 -0800
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > >> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
> > >> nearly everybody, with nearly every
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:09:11 -0800
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
> >> nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
> >> of organisations.
> >
> > the
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> :: On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> :: > Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure
> the
> :: > first */127* of the link", as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
> :: > scanning-typ
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
>> nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
>> of organisations.
>
> the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
> for
> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
> nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
> of organisations.
the general intent of a class B allocation is that it is large enough
for nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
:: On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: > Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
:: > first */127* of the link", as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
:: > scanning-type attacks (with a /126, there is stil
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:47:35 +0200 (EET)
Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> > Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
> > first */127* of the link", as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
> > scanning-type attacks (with a /1
In message <20100127160401.1a963...@opy.nosense.org>, Mark Smith writes:
> Sure. However I think people are treating IPv6 as just IPv4 with larger
> addresses, yet not even thinking about what capabilities that larger
> addressing is giving them that don't or haven't existed in IPv4 for a
> very l
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
first */127* of the link", as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
scanning-type attacks (with a /126, there is still the possibility of
ping-pong on a p-t-p interface) w/o u
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:11:41 -0500
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Mark Smith
> wrote:
>
> >
> > The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
> > nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
>
> 'nearly everybody
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Mark Smith
wrote:
>
> The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for
> nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest
'nearly everybody with a single site' sure. I know of more than a few
VPN deployments (enterpris
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:13:22 -0500
Tim Durack wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Mark Smith
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
> > "TJ" wrote:
>
> >> I didn't realize "human friendly" was even a nominal design consideration,
> >> especially as different humans have differe
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:38:43 -0800 (PST)
David Barak wrote:
> From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
>
> >Why can't IPv6 node addressing be as easy to understand and work with
> >as Ethernet addresses? They were designed in the early 1980s*. 28 years
> >or so
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Matt Addison wrote:
>
> :: You're forgetting Matthew Petach's suggestion- reserve/assign a /64 for
> :: each PtP link, but only configure the first /126 (or whatever /126 you
> :: need to get an amusing peer address) on the link.
>
> Matt meant "reser
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Matt Addison wrote:
:: You're forgetting Matthew Petach's suggestion- reserve/assign a /64 for
:: each PtP link, but only configure the first /126 (or whatever /126 you
:: need to get an amusing peer address) on the link.
Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, b
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 26-1-2010 1:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> - "Waste" of addresses
>>> - Peer address needs to be known, impossible to guess with 2^64 addresses
>> Most of us use ::1 for the assigning side and ::2 for the non-assigning side
>> of
>> the
On Jan 26, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>> some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
>>
>> 1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
>> 2) go to *RIR's and get / to cover the
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>
>> No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
>>
>> However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always
>> apply a more conservative
>> numbering policy to the next /3. (And s
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>> some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
>>
>> 1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
>> 2) go to *RIR's and get / to cover
On 26-1-2010 1:33, Owen DeLong wrote:
- "Waste" of addresses
- Peer address needs to be known, impossible to guess with 2^64 addresses
Most of us use ::1 for the assigning side and ::2 for the non-assigning side of
the connection. On multipoints, such as exchanges, the popular alter
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG
> mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
oh damned it! almost as many v6 ietf mailing lists as there are v6 addresses :(
subscribe info
On 1/26/10 7:43 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
>> o will your remote-office's ISP's accept the /48's per site? (vz/vzb
>> > is a standout example here)
> Not too worried about VZ. Given that large content providers are
> getting end-site address space, I think they will have to adjust their
> stance.
>
H
Chris,
Discussion of draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p is on the IETF 6man WG
mailing list. But please do chime in. Operator input very welcomed.
Ron
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> In ref
On 2010-01-26 at 10:05:29 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
> If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
> as a species manages to spread beyond this world before we destroy it). Will
> separate /3's, or subdivisions of subsequent /3's, be the best approach to
> deplo
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
> "TJ" wrote:
>> I didn't realize "human friendly" was even a nominal design consideration,
>> especially as different humans have different tolerances for defining
>> "friendly" :)
>>
>
> This from people
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
>
> 1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
> 2) go to *RIR's and get / to cover the number of remote
> sites you have in their region(s)
> 3)
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
> Why do you force POP infrastructure to be a /48? That allows you only 16 POPs
> which is pretty restrictive IMO.
> Why not simply take say 4 /48s and sparsely allocate /56s to each POP and
> then grow the /56s if you require more networks at
Daniel Senie wrote:
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread beyon
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
>
> What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space cover? (If we
as a species manages to spread beyond this world before
Owen DeLong wrote:
No, they're not impossible to exhaust, just pretty difficult.
However, If we see exhaustion coming too soon in this /3, we can always apply a
more conservative
numbering policy to the next /3. (And still have 5 /3s left to innovate and try
other alternatives).
Owen
From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
>Why can't IPv6 node addressing be as easy to understand and work with
>as Ethernet addresses? They were designed in the early 1980s*. 28 years
>or so years later, it's time for layer 3 addressing to catch up.
Becase Ethe
On 26/01/2010 13:35, TJ wrote:
> The US DoD has the equivalent of a /13 ... what is the question?
In fact, they have a little less than a /18. This is still the largest
block when aggregated - France Telecom comes second with a single /19.
http://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg01876.htm
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Smith
> [mailto:na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 23:07
> To: TJ
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
<>
> > I didn't reali
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 22:38
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:34:46 -0500
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
> >
> >> Ok let's summarize:
> >>
> >> /64:
> >> + Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
> >> +
On 1/25/2010 20:06, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> This from people who can probably do decimal to binary conversion
> and back again for IPv4 subnetting in their head and are proud of
> it. Surely IPv6 hex to binary and back again can be the new party
> trick? :-)
>
>
>
Hehe. Decimal -> binary in your
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
"TJ" wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
> > To: TJ
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:50:35 -0500
Tim Durack wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Harden wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Our numbering plan is this:
> >
> > 1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
> > 2) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we control
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
>> An ISP allocation is /32, which is only 2^16 /48s. Again, not that big.
>>
>> That's just the starting minimum. Many ISPs have already gotten much larger
>> IPv6 allocations.
>
> Understood. Again, the problem for me is medium/large end-user
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Once you start planning a practical address plan, IPv6 isn't as big as
>> everybody keeps saying...
>
> It's more than big enough for any deployment I've seen so far with plenty
> of room to spare.
Oh good! so the us-DoD's /10 request is get
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
>
>> Ok let's summarize:
>>
>> /64:
>> + Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
>> + Probability of renumbering very low
>> + simpler for ACLs and the like
>> +
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> 2^128 is a "very big number." However, from a network engineering
> perspective, IPv6 is really only 64bits of network address space. 2^64
> is still a "very big number."
>
> An end-user assignment /48 is really only 2^16 networks. That's not
>
> 2^128 is a "very big number." However, from a network engineering
> perspective, IPv6 is really only 64bits of network address space. 2^64
> is still a "very big number."
>
> An end-user assignment /48 is really only 2^16 networks. That's not
> very big once you start planning a human-friendl
On Jan 25, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 1/25/2010 4:45 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
>>> There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever
>>> use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that 2,305
On Jan 25, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
>> While I agree with parts of what you are saying - that using the "simple
>> 2^128" math can be misleading, let's be clear on a few things:
>> *) 2^61 is still very, very big. That i
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
> Ok let's summarize:
>
> /64:
> + Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
> + Probability of renumbering very low
> + simpler for ACLs and the like
> + rDNS on a bit boundary
>
> <>You can give your peers fu
On 26/01/2010, at 8:50 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
> This is what we have planned:
>
> 2620::xx00::/41 AS-NETx-2620-0-xx00
>
> 2620::xx00::/44 Infrastructure
>
>
> 2620::xx01::/48
> From: "TJ"
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
> > To: TJ
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Using /126 for
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
> To: TJ
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
<>
>
> 2^128 is a "very big number." However, from a network e
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Harden wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Our numbering plan is this:
>
> 1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
> 2) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we control both sides? /126
> 3) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we DON'T contr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our numbering plan is this:
1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
2) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we control both sides? /126
3) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we DON'T control both sides? /64
4) Loopback? /128
Within our /48 we've carved i
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:01 PM, TJ wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
>> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:08
>> To: TJ
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
>
On 1/25/2010 4:45 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever
use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that 2,305,843,009,213,693,952
/64s. This is enough to fill over seven L
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:08
> To: TJ
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
> > Wh
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
> While I agree with parts of what you are saying - that using the "simple
> 2^128" math can be misleading, let's be clear on a few things:
> *) 2^61 is still very, very big. That is the number of IPv6 network
> segments available within 2000::/3
In a message written on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:14:06PM +0100, Mathias Seiler
wrote:
> Ok let's summarize:
>
> /64:
> + Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
> + Probability of renumbering very low
> + simpler for ACLs and the like
> + rDNS on a bit boundary
>
>
> From: Mathias Seiler [mailto:mathias.sei...@mironet.ch]
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
>
> Ok let's summarize:
>
> /64:
> + Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
> + Probability of renumbering very low
> +
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit boundary
<> You can give your peers funny names, like 2001:db8::dead:beef ;)
- Prone to atta
> The gazillions of one-time-use nanomachines used to scrape away plaque in
> just a single patient's bloodstream,
Ah, now if only was hadn't deprecated site-local... :)
Good Morning!
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 05:45
> To: Andy Davidson
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +0
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 01:14:17AM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> As I mentioned in my lightning talk at the last NANOG, we reserved a
> /64 for each PtP link, but configured it as the first /126 out of the
> /64. That gives us the most flexibility for expanding to the full /64
> later if neces
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
> There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever
> use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that 2,305,843,009,213,693,952
> /64s. This is enough to fill over seven Lake Eries. The total amount
> of ipv6 address s
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
wrote:
> Hi
> In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know
> what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
>
> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
> between two routers. Thi
On 24/01/2010 02:44, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M,
>> you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with M&Ms before you
>> ran out of /64s.
> Did somebody once say something like that about C
On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> On 24/01/2010, at 5:28 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>> In a message written on Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:52:21PM +0100, Mathias
>> Seiler wrote:
>>> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
>>> between two route
> During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of different
> alternatives were considered. At one point, there was a compromise proposal
> known as the "Big 10" design, because it was propounded at the Big Ten
> Conference Center near O'Hare. One feature of it was addresses of leng
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:12:04 +1030
Glen Turner wrote:
> On 24/01/10 12:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind.
>
> I'd suggest using a /126. For two reasons.
>
> 1) Using EUI-64 addresses on router-router links is an error, the
> consequence
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:41:18 -0500
Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
> >
> >> Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for
> >> the change from 64 bits to
On 24/01/10 12:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind.
I'd suggest using a /126. For two reasons.
1) Using EUI-64 addresses on router-router links is an error, the
consequences of which you encounter the first time you replace
some faulty har
On 24/01/2010, at 5:28 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:52:21PM +0100, Mathias Seiler
> wrote:
>> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
>> between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64
On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
>
>> Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for
>> the change from 64 bits to 128.
>>
>> During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of di
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
> Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for
> the change from 64 bits to 128.
>
> During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of different
> alternatives were considered. At one point, there was a com
On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> Actually, from what Christian Huitema says in his "IPv6: The New
> Internet Protocol" book, the original IPv6 address size was 64 bits,
> derived from Steve Deering's Simple Internet Protocol proposal.
> IIRC, they doubled it to 128 bits to spec
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:57:17 -0800
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> > On 1/23/2010 9:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> 64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M,
> you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with
On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 9:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M,
you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with M&Ms before you
ran out of /64s.
>>>
>>> Did somebody once say s
On 1/24/2010 10:03 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:04:31 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
I remember a day when 18 was the largest number of computers that would
ever be needed.
First off, it was 5, not 18. :)
Second, there's not much evidence that TJ Watson actually said i
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:04:31 CST, Larry Sheldon said:
> I remember a day when 18 was the largest number of computers that would
> ever be needed.
First off, it was 5, not 18. :)
Second, there's not much evidence that TJ Watson actually said it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Fam
In a message written on Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:52:21PM +0100, Mathias Seiler
wrote:
> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
> between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64
> - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong.
>
> So wha
On 1/23/2010 9:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M,
you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with M&Ms before you
ran out of /64s.
Did somebody once say something like that about Class C addresses?
The number of /24s in all of I
That's why we have the safety valve...
2000::/3 is the total address space being issued currently.
So, if we discover that there aren't enough /64s like we currently
think there are, then, before we start issuing from 4000::/3, we
can have a new address plan for that address space while leaving
th
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:55:52 -0600
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> Sometimes good enough > perfect
>
> Never know what is going to come along to turn your addressing plan on its
> head.
>
It seems to me that what this really is about is trying to be in the
best position in the future. I think mai
Sometimes good enough > perfect
Never know what is going to come along to turn your addressing plan on its head.
-brandon
On 1/23/10, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
>>> In reference to the discussion about /3
On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like
to know what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for
the link b
On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
> Hi
>
> In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know
> what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
>
> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
> between two routers. T
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> It isn't 'FUD'.
> redistribute connected.
In that case, the fault would lie just as much with the unconditional
redistribution policy, as the addressing scheme, which is error-prone
in and of itself.
No matter how you address your links o
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:08:05 -0500
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to
>> > know what is your expe
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
