> When we renumbered LONAP from /24 to /22, we had to change netblocks too
The LONAP change was the snoothest, speediest, no drama IXP addressing
change I've seen. All IXP should copy their process.
brandon
On 5 Apr 2015, at 04:29, Paul Stewart wrote:
> I worked for a provider until recently that happened to get an IP assignment
> at an IXP that was transitioning from /25 to /24. It was painful chasing
> down peers to get them to change their netmask just so we could connect.
> This went on for sev
contacts of
whom many of them didn't know the mask had changed in the first place.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 10:36 PM
To: Mike Hammett
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
>
On 5/Apr/15 02:35, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Okay, so I decided to look at what current IXes are doing.
>
> It looks like AMS-IX, Equinix and Coresite as well as some of the smaller
> IXes are all using /64s for their IX fabrics. Seems to be a slam dunk then as
> how to handle the IPv6. We've got
n single subnets, but that's v4 too.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> To: "Mike Hammett"
> Cc: "NANOG"
>
> On Apr 4, 2015, at 7:28 PM, Charles Gucker wrote:
>
> I've been involved in IX renumbering efforts because exchange(s)
> decided to use /25's instead of /24's.It's painful because
> troubleshooting can be a little difficult as differing subnetmasks are
> in play. If you have the address
What does the community think about IXes
> on smaller than /24s?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
>
> From: "Brendan Halley"
> To: "
l.com
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Brendan Halley"
> To: "Mike Hammett"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 6:10:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
>
>
> IPv4 and IPv6 subnets are diffe
om: "Brendan Halley"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 6:10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
IPv4 and IPv6 subnets are different. While a single IPv4 is taken to be a
single device, an IPv6 /64 is designed to be treated as an
On Sat, 2015-04-04 at 18:02 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> That makes sense. I do recall now reading about having that 8 bit
> separation between tiers of networks. However, in an IX everyone is
> supposed to be able to talk to everyone else. Traditionally (AFAIK),
> it's all been on the same subnet.
een single subnets, but that's
v4 too.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 5:49:37 PM
Sub
On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:06:02 -0500, Mike Hammett said:
> I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every IX
> location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), even
> though
> we nqever expected anywhere near that many on a given fabric. Then okay, how
> do
I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every IX
location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), even though
we never expected anywhere near that many on a given fabric. Then okay, how do
we do v6? We got a /48, so the thought was a /64 for each. That o
13 matches
Mail list logo
