Stephen Sprunk writes:
> FireWire is the only significant user of EUI-64 addresses to date;
> if you're using a link layer with EUI-48 addresses
Zigbee has been around a lot less time than FireWire, but is hardly
insignificant (ask anyone who's working on smartgrid or green home
stuff). I'm su
; -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Sprunk
>
> Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 16:36:16
> To: Bill Stewart
> Cc: north American Noise and Off-topic Gripes; Joe
> Greco
> Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>
>
> Bill Stewart wrote:
>> When I came back,
>> FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default
>> criteria for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
>I define that as "not aggressive". (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
>faster than that.)
Fair enough, but IMHO it is aggressive enough to accomplish t
On Wed, 06 May 2009 16:50:15 -0400, TJ wrote:
FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default criteria
for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
I define that as "not aggressive". (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
faster than that.)
I'd be
>>> No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses
>>> is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
>>
>> You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
>
>Their awful experimental IPv6 stack in XP already does 3041, so I assume
Vista,
>2008,
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:24:09 -0400, Tony Finch wrote:
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
Their awful experimental IPv6 stack in XP
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:57:53AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> Of course, the builders used screen doors and windows for the
> below-the-waterline openings, but not to worry, the bilge pump equivalent
> of Moore's Law will undoubtedly save us.
Speaking as a builder, I have to say the screen doo
>-Original Message-
>> > > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need
>> > > to generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
>> >
>> > No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses
>> > is only ever something you want in very
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 14:24 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need to
> > > generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
> >
On May 5, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Look, the Ark *is* finished. It floats. It can be steered. It has
space
for everyone. The fact that some of the plumbing is a bit iffy is just
not a major issue right now; getting everybody on board is. We have
LOTS
of very clever people ready to
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need to
> > generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
>
> No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing add
On May 6, 2009, at 14:52, Jack Bates wrote:
Better standards
Sure!
(You are preaching to the choir here.)
While we are still on the way there, we just:
1) Shouldn't waste time reinventing decisions that are a done deal
(say, EUI-64 in SAA).
2) Shouldn't use the lack of our favorite feature
Carsten Bormann wrote:
For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out
half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57) to
the first asker, then a /58, then a /59 etc. The first asker (nested
CPE) has a /57, reserves a /64 for itself (SAA), hands out a /5
t; Objet : Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> > What is missing, unless I've missed a protocol (which is always
> > possible), is an automated way for a CPE to assign it's
> networks, pass
> > other n
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:49 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
> Because more is more, and it makes it less likely that people will start
> to invent silly solutions to problems that do not really exist. With a
> /56, I can't real
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 at
10:43:17PM -0400 Quoting Ricky Beam (jfb...@gmail.com):
> The address space has be carved out;
> there's no "uncutting" that pie. (much in the same way the /8 handed out
> in the early 80'
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:12 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet.
Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
Honest question - what's the difference?
Because more is more, and it
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:12 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet.
Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
Honest question - what's the difference?
> Gruesse, Carsten
Gruesse, K.
--
Sure, but how does the router know it needs to hand out a /62? Then
what about the router after that? Does it hand out a /61? then the
router behind that?
For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out
half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57)
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 22:43 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> I'm complaining that the IPv6 we're all being asked to use is a buggy
> contraption that's best parked until more of it's issues are resolved.
Using it is the fastest way to get issues resolved. It worked for
IPv4... :-)
Expecting all the i
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2009 20:39:23 -0400, Karl Auer wrote:
On the other hand - we have DHCPv6 to work around it. Noone HAS to use
SLAAC. ...
Yes, but as long as it exists, someone *will*.
Actually everyone does. The same formula is used for the link local
addresses, which annoy
On Tue, 05 May 2009 20:39:23 -0400, Karl Auer wrote:
Wow, that's a metaphor that has been not merely mixed, but shaken and
stirred as well. Are you for a move to IPv6 now or not? Is the Pinto
IPv4 or IPv6? What does the exploding gas tank represent?
I'm complaining that the IPv6 we're all bein
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:39:23AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need to
> > generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
>
> No - but it is *phenomenally useful
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need to
> generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
only ever something you want in v
Ricky Beam wrote:
Ah, but they half-assed the solution. IPv6 makes no distinction between
network and host (eg. "classless"), yet SLAAC forces this oddball,
classful boundry. Routing doesn't care. Even the hosts don't care.
Only the tiny craplet of autoconfig demands the network and host ea
x27;t help, and many other decisions have since been
made that rely on /64s.
So, half-assed or not - this is the protocol we have, and it works today ... So
what is the operational debate?
/TJ
--Original Message--
From: Ricky Beam
To: Jack Bates
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Where to buy I
The potential problem is segmentation. Start assigning meanings to
chunks of bits, like routing info or even customer type (mobile,
static, etc) or geography, and the bits can get used up pretty
quickly. Or put another way the address space becomes sparsely
populated but inflexible.
I know, "don'
e, 05 May 2009 15:58:16
To: Joe Greco
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Tue, 05 May 2009 09:13:06 -0400, Joe Greco wrote:
> No, it's not too late to make simple changes. We're still figuring out
> lots of bits about it.
Yes, it is too late. IPv6
On Tue, 05 May 2009 16:13:05 -0400, Jack Bates wrote:
Actually, they probably would have stuck to a 64 bit address space and
it was debated. Then it came down to, let's make it a 64 bit network
space, and give another 64 bits for hosts (96 bits probably would have
worked, but someone appare
Jack Bates wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why wouldn't DHCPv6-PD work within the home as well as between the
ISP and the home?
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
It doesn't need to; that's just a flaw in current implementations.
I see little reason why the main home gateway can't get
> Joe Greco wrote:
> > Now, the question is, if you're sending all these prefix requests up to
> > the ISP's router, why is *that* device able to cope with it, and why is
> > the CPE device *not* able to cope with it?
>
> The CPE cannot cope with it due to lack of a chaining standard and the
> la
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:28:25 -0400, Charles Wyble
wrote:
Utility companies utilize Zigbee pretty extensively. So that's
millions and millions of addresses right there.
But does the entire planet need to talk to those critters? No. Nor
should they even be able to.
Rea
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:28:25 -0400, Charles Wyble
wrote:
Utility companies utilize Zigbee pretty extensively. So that's millions
and millions of addresses right there.
But does the entire planet need to talk to those critters? No. Nor
should they even be able to.
Those little gadgets c
Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out
an RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the
sophisticated users who want routed behavior override it manually.
Jack Bates wrote:
Joe Greco wrote:
Now, the question is, if you're sending all these prefi
Ricky Beam wrote:
Yes, we all are. We will all be given a minimum of a /64, while no one
has a need for even a billionth of that space, and aren't likely to for
the forseeable future. When they do, *then* give them the space they
need. Ah, but "renumbering is a pain", you say. That's anothe
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
Are you sure? Isn't it just that the current implementations do?
Sure, but how does the router know it needs to hand out a /62? Then what
about the router after that? Does it hand out a /61? then the router behind
On Tue, 05 May 2009 09:13:06 -0400, Joe Greco wrote:
No, it's not too late to make simple changes. We're still figuring out
lots of bits about it.
Yes, it is too late. IPv6 as it stands is a huge pile of crap and bloat.
We'd be better off straping the whole mess and starting over, but tha
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why wouldn't DHCPv6-PD work within the home as well as between the ISP
and the home?
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
I see little reason why the main home gateway can't get a /56 from the
ISP, and then hand out /62 (or whatever) to any routers within the ho
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
What is missing, unless I've missed a protocol (which is always possible), is
an automated way for a CPE to assign it's networks, pass other networks out
to downstream routers in an on-need basis. I say on-need, as there may be 3
routers directly behind th
Joe Greco wrote:
Now, the question is, if you're sending all these prefix requests up to
the ISP's router, why is *that* device able to cope with it, and why is
the CPE device *not* able to cope with it?
The CPE cannot cope with it due to lack of a chaining standard and the
lack of customer und
> Joe Greco wrote:
> >> Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
> >> PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
> >
> > How is it the ISP's router is able to handle this? Be specific.
>
> I view with suspicion the notion that an ISP is going to take a
Charles Wyble wrote:
([*] according to the wiki, firewire and zigbee are the only things
using EUI-64. I don't know of anyone using firewire as a network
backbone. (obviously, not that you care.) Zigbee is relatively new
and similar to bluetooth; will people use them as a NIC or connect
lit
([*] according to the wiki, firewire and zigbee are the only things
using EUI-64. I don't know of anyone using firewire as a network
backbone. (obviously, not that you care.) Zigbee is relatively new and
similar to bluetooth; will people use them as a NIC or connect little
zigbee gadgets t
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:04:49 +1000
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 04:49 +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > I'm with you. I wish vendors and spec designers would just get over it
> > > and let people subnet however they want.
> > [...]
> > do other than 64 and you do not get auto-conf. s
> On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:08:51 -0400, Joe Greco wrote:
> > For today. But, remember, this sort of shortsightedness is what landed
> > us in the current IPv4 pain.
>
> 48bit MACs have caused IPv4 address exhaustion? Wow. I didn't know that.
No, thinking small is what landed us in the current I
Joe Greco wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
How is it the ISP's router is able to handle this? Be specific.
I view with suspicion the notion that an ISP is going to take addressing
directi
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Do
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jack Bates:
Sorry, Ricky. But that won't work. EUI-64 is required for autoconfig,
and it expands the 48 bits to 64 bits by inserting or FFFE
depending on if the original is a MAC-48 or EUI-48 identifier.
I'm rather puzzled why this blatant layering violation is st
-Message d'origine-
De : char...@thewybles.com [mailto:char...@thewybles.com]
Envoyé : mardi 5 mai 2009 05:18
À : na...@merit.edu
Objet : Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Re sending... I know operational content is frowned on :) ... However in an
effort to avoid this thread ge
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
That's exactly how IPv4 was seen long ago, and we've been and will be
living with that mistake for decades.
It was fixed 15 years ago, but not before more than half the space was
"wasted". With IPv6 we can use current policy a
* Jack Bates:
> Sorry, Ricky. But that won't work. EUI-64 is required for autoconfig,
> and it expands the 48 bits to 64 bits by inserting or FFFE
> depending on if the original is a MAC-48 or EUI-48 identifier.
I'm rather puzzled why this blatant layering violation is still sold
as a must-h
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does anybody know why anyb
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
That's exactly how IPv4 was seen long ago, and we've been and will be living
with that mistake for decades.
It was fixed 15 years ago, but not before more than half the space was
"wasted". With IPv6 we can use current policy and only "waste" a /3 and
the
On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:08:51 -0400, Joe Greco wrote:
For today. But, remember, this sort of shortsightedness is what landed
us in the current IPv4 pain.
48bit MACs have caused IPv4 address exhaustion? Wow. I didn't know that.
... justify not making a future-proofing change now, before IPv
On May 4, 2009, at 23:36, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
FireWire is the only significant user of EUI-64 addresses
Yesterday, it was.
You might want to read up about IEEE 802.15.4 and 6LoWPAN.
We are not joking when we talk about the next billion nodes on the
Internet.
For those who are worried ab
Thanks for the in depth reply.
There have been many v6 threads and perhaps I haven't paid enough attention or
looked hard enough for the answers. :)
I will send a more detailed reply tomorrow when I'm at a mail client that can
do in line replies. :)
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
char...@thewybles.com wrote:
Anyone care to field my question?
I think many of your questions have been answered in past threads this
month a couple of times.
how do existing providers hand out space?
I know that Hurricane electric (via its tunnel service) hands out a /64 by default and a /
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 22:29:29 -0400, Jack Bates wrote:
> > EUI-64 is required for autoconfig...
>
> "On paper" :-) There's no technological reason why the 48bit MAC wouldn't
> be enough on it's own.
For today. But, remember, this sort of shortsightedness is what landed
us in the current IP
On Mon, 04 May 2009 22:29:29 -0400, Jack Bates wrote:
EUI-64 is required for autoconfig...
"On paper" :-) There's no technological reason why the 48bit MAC wouldn't
be enough on it's own. Tacking on an extra (fixed) 16bit value doesn't
make it any more unique. Doing so also would not ad
--Original Message--
From: Stephen Sprunk
To: Bill Stewart
Cc: north American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Cc: Joe Greco
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Sent: May 4, 2009 2:36 PM
Bill Stewart wrote:
> When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead, so not only w
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 04:49 +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I'm with you. I wish vendors and spec designers would just get over it
> > and let people subnet however they want.
> [...]
> do other than 64 and you do not get auto-conf. some do not consider
> this a loss, others do.
This is an import
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
I think Ricky's point is that he could do autoconfig in a /80 as long as there
isn't the semi-gratuitous MAC-48->EUI-64 expansion.
Is there an implementation of autoconfig that doesn't do the expansion?
I haven't tested it, but I'm not even sure that autoconfig
On Mon, 04 May 2009 21:29:29 CDT, Jack Bates said:
> Ricky Beam wrote:
> > If I'm allowed to subnet my single /64, then I'm still not using NAT.
> > And as long as I don't go beyond /80, autoconfig can still work, at
> > least on ethernet -- which is pretty much 99.999% of cases. (not that I
>
> "64bit MAC" -- which pretty much exists nowhere. It's a repeat of the
> mistakes from IPv4's early days: CLASSFUL ROUTING.
>
> I'm with you. I wish vendors and spec designers would just get over it
> and let people subnet however they want.
you can. there was a bit of a war in the ietf s
Ricky Beam wrote:
If I'm allowed to subnet my single /64, then I'm still not using NAT.
And as long as I don't go beyond /80, autoconfig can still work, at
least on ethernet -- which is pretty much 99.999% of cases. (not that I
advocate the use of autoconfig. *grin*)
Sorry, Ricky. But that w
>> There are about 11 million /56s per person on the planet, we're not
>> about to run out.
>
>"We have enough addresses for about four billion of these."
>
>http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/chris/think/ARPANET/images/imp.gif
>
>"We're not about to run out."
And while the two bear some level of sim
>-Original Message-
>From: Ricky Beam [mailto:jfb...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 7:23 PM
>To: Leo Bicknell; nanog list
>Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>
>On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:50:04 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> My 12.0(S), 12.4, and
>-Original Message-
>From: Ricky Beam [mailto:jfb...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 6:38 PM
>To: nanog list
>Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>
>On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:01:32 -0400, Jack Bates wrote:
>> Given there is no CLASS, but just
Ian Mason wrote:
There are about 11 million /56s per person on the planet, we're not
about to run out.
"We have enough addresses for about four billion of these."
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/chris/think/ARPANET/images/imp.gif
"We're not about to run out."
--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - N
On 3 May 2009, at 05:20, James Hess wrote:
A /62 takes care of that unusual case, no real need for a /56 for
the average residential user; that's just excessive.
There are about 11 million /56s per person on the planet, we're not
about to run out. As there's nothing to conserve why follo
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:50:04 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
My 12.0(S), 12.4, and IOS-XR boxes are operating quite well with
/112's and /127's on GigE interfaces to each other, on GSR's, 7300's,
and 7200's. We also use /128's on loopbacks.
Must have been old (very old?) code when I first tried th
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:27:32 -0400, Jack Bates wrote:
Customers should also be able to implement multiple networks with
support for stateless autoconfig. Doing away with NAT means new ways of
handing out networks, ...
If I'm allowed to subnet my single /64, then I'm still not using NAT. An
In a message written on Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:38:13PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> So far, Cisco's gear is the only IPv6 routers I've messed with. And they
> will not let you set an interface to anything smaller than a /64.
> Loopbacks have slightly different rules, but in my case (IPv6 tunne
Louis,
may be a provider independent network is what you are looking for. This
is an end-user block of IP addresses moving with you from one ISP to
another, also can be multihomed to several ISPs together.
Our company helps to obtain such networks and autonomous system numbers,
from /24 (256 IPs,
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:01:32 -0400, Jack Bates wrote:
Given there is no CLASS, but just a separation of network and host, I'd
hate to compare it to classful routing. They probably would have been
happy with a /96 network except for stateless autoconfig, which is quite
nice for some stuff ac
Joe Greco wrote:
But what we're talking about is service providers delegating to customers.
Customers should *also* be allowed to subnet "however they want."
Something they can't do right now, because they aren't given the space.
If service providers are allowed to delegate teeny prefixes (mean
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart
> wrote:
> > When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
> > so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
> > but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
> > Does anybody know why anybody thought it was a g
Ricky Beam wrote:
"64bit MAC" -- which pretty much exists nowhere. It's a repeat of the
mistakes from IPv4's early days: CLASSFUL ROUTING.
Given there is no CLASS, but just a separation of network and host, I'd
hate to compare it to classful routing. They probably would have been
happy wit
-
From: Stephen Sprunk
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 16:36:16
To: Bill Stewart
Cc: north American Noise and Off-topic Gripes; Joe
Greco
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Bill Stewart wrote:
> When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead, so not only was
> autoconfiguration
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does anybody know why anybody thought it was a good idea
to put the
Bill Stewart wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead, so not only was
autoconfiguration much uglier, but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you
were going to subnet.
It's supposed to be a /48 per customer, on the assumption that 16 bits
of subnet information is suff
> You have RFC3041 and similar techniques, stateless autoconfig, and a
> variety of other general things that make it really awful for the default
> ethernet network size to be something besides a /64.
...
> I would definitely prefer to see a /56, or maybe a /48, handed out
> today.
When I first s
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
What remains to be seen is what will happen when someone says "hey, my
/32 is full, I need another one". Will it be:
a) Sure, here's another /32, have fun!
b) You didn't subnet very efficiently by current standards even though
it was encouraged in the pa
Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On May 4, 2009, at 10:08, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
>> Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
>> PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
>
> If the ISP sees (and has to hand out) the PD, some bean counter will put
> a price tag on
Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Joe Greco wrote:
>
>> One of the goals of providing larger address spaces was to reduce (and
>> hopefully eliminate) the need to burn forwarding table entries where
>> doing so isn't strictly necessary. When we forget this, it leads us
>> to the same sorts of disasters t
Joe Greco wrote:
One of the goals of providing larger address spaces was to reduce (and
hopefully eliminate) the need to burn forwarding table entries where
doing so isn't strictly necessary. When we forget this, it leads us
to the same sorts of disasters that we currently have in v4.
... JG
Joe Greco wrote:
How is it the ISP's router is able to handle this? Be specific.
The primary benefit of chaining is to allocate the correct network
length to a router. We are not just talking from the ISP to the
customer, but from the customer's CPE out to other routers. I believe
chaining
>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmai...@ttec.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:04 AM
>To: Joe Greco
>Cc: nanog list
>Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
>
>
>
>Joe Greco wrote:
>
>> One of the goals of providing l
> Joe Greco wrote:
> > One of the goals of providing larger address spaces was to reduce (and
> > hopefully eliminate) the need to burn forwarding table entries where
> > doing so isn't strictly necessary. When we forget this, it leads us
> > to the same sorts of disasters that we currently have i
On May 4, 2009, at 6:21 AM, "Jack Bates" wrote:
[...]
>>
> Then tell RIR's to quit insisting that /56's have SWIP's. They can't
> very well be dynamic in nature via PD if they are being SWIP'd.
If you are referring to section 6.5.4.4 of ARIN's NRPM, it does not
require you to use SWIP. It req
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
Then tell RIR's to quit insisting that /56's have SWIP's. They can't
very well be dynamic in nature via PD if they are being SWIP'd.
I never heard of this requirement before, but I am not in the ARIN region.
There is no technical reason why you can't give
On May 4, 2009, at 10:08, Nathan Ward wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
If the ISP sees (and has to hand out) the PD, some bean counter will
put a price tag on it ("differential pricing").
If
* Jack Bates
> Then tell RIR's to quit insisting that /56's have SWIP's. They can't
> very well be dynamic in nature via PD if they are being SWIP'd.
I believe this is not the case with RIPE, you'll only need to register
assignments that are larger than /48 in their database. See ripe-466
sectio
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
It's short sighted and silly to design your service around handing out
/64s to people and then you have to redesign it when demand for multiple
subnets come around. Design it around /56 to begin with, and you will
have solved the problem for the future, not just for no
In a message written on Mon, May 04, 2009 at 11:34:20AM +,
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> i've been told that in the (roughly) NANOG region, that ARIN's 2008-6
> or some rough
> analog should be in place on or before 01jun2009. What is 2008-6?
I strongly recommend waiting a
> I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people chain
> three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /60 and not
> a /64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if someone puts
> three devices behind the second?
>
> These are weird topologies, sure, b
back to the subject matter...
i've been told that in the (roughly) NANOG region, that ARIN's 2008-6
or some rough
analog should be in place on or before 01jun2009. What is 2008-6?
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html
Draft Policy 2008-6
Emergency Transfer Poli
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
Because it allows the home user to arrange their network however they
want, up to 16 subnets, without having to have any knowledge of how
things actually work.
I don't see how your idea of doing on-demand-/64 is any easier than
handing them 256 /64:s to
On 4/05/2009, at 8:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people
chain three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /
60 and not a /64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people chain
three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /60 and not a
/64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if someone puts
three devices behind the second?
This is
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
