I try not to think about sinners too much when planning networks. Subnets are
more interesting.
Maybe many of you like spending time maintaining NAT configurations and
creatively masking as determined by today's end system count on each subnet.
This all, of course, in the interest of maximum ad
--- o...@delong.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong
we will have plenty of address space to number the internet
for many many years.
--
You can't know the future and what addressing requirements
it'll bring:
"I have to say that in 1981, making those de
The original plan was to go from 32 to 64 bits total. The additional 64 bits
were added purely for the sake of EUI-64 based addressing, and really, 64 bits
of network number is way more than enough.
The /64 a are not what justify the larger blocks. That's IPv4 think.
In IPv6, it is far better
back in the good o'l days when we would hand out 24 bits for the
number of hosts in a network. It was too many bits then and is
too many bits now a /64 is just overkill.
/bill
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 03:11:39PM -0400, Ryan McIntosh wrote:
> I'd love to be able to turn the microwave an
I'd love to be able to turn the microwave and oven on with my phone..
maybe ten years from now lol..
In all seriousness though (and after skimming some of the other
responses), I absolutely understand the ideals and needs amongst
conserving memory on our routers for the sake of the future of bgp a
William Herrin wrote:
[...]
> And yet we're allocating /19's
If the stats published at
http://www.nro.net/pub/stats/nro/delegated-extended are to be believed
then the only two /19s were allocated in 2005 when the HD-ratio value in
the policy was lower. Looking at all the RIRs together another n
On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:11 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> William Herrin writes:
>>> IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to 32 bits. Which when you think about it is
>>> the same ratio as jumping from 32 bits to 128 bits.
>>
>> Jumping from 8 bits to 32 bi
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> William Herrin writes:
>> IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to 32 bits. Which when you think about it is
>> the same ratio as jumping from 32 bits to 128 bits.
>
> Jumping from 8 bits to 32 bits (1:16mm) is the same ratio as would be
> jumping from 32
William Herrin writes:
> IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to 32 bits. Which when you think about it is
> the same ratio as jumping from 32 bits to 128 bits.
Sorry for the late reply, Bill, but you were snoozing when they taught
logarithms in high school weren't you?
Jumping from 8 bits to 32 bits (1:16
On 9/27/2013 1:10 AM, Ryan McIntosh wrote:
I don't respond to many of these threads but I have to say I've
contested this one too only to have to beaten into my head that a /64
is "appropriate".. it still hasn't stuck, but unfortunately rfc's for
other protocols depend on the blocks to now be a /
"...and leave my BN alone, please - go play with the AGS"
>
> From: "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu"
>To: Ben
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 7:40 AM
>Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
>
&
On Sep 29, 2013, at 12:49 AM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> Yes, I was lazy in most of the adaptation, but I think it serves a
> good starting point for market based suggestions to the route slot
> problem.
>
> Your post advocates a
>
> (X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
>
> a
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:27:26AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, TJ wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:32 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> >> IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to
> >> 32 bits. Which when you think about it is the same ratio as jumping
> >> from 32 bits to
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, TJ wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:32 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to
>> 32 bits. Which when you think about it is the same ratio as jumping
>> from 32 bits to 128 bits.
>
> Only insofar as the jump from 1 to 1000 is the same as the
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:32 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>
IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to
> 32 bits. Which when you think about it is the same ratio as jumping
> from 32 bits to 128 bits.
>
Only insofar as the jump from 1 to 1000 is the same as the jump from 1000
is to 100 ... :)
/TJ
riginal Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Ben
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:05:01 +0100, Ben said:
> Most people here were probably not of working age
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:05:01 +0100, Ben said:
> Most people here were probably not of working age in 1985 ;-)
"All you kids, get off my Proteon!" :)
pgp6RpOt1bBpB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>> The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space
>> exhaustion.
>
> no. ipv4 was the second time, not the first
Hi Randy,
The first time they had 256 addresses (8 bits)
*Beer* - sorry to take this further off topic.
Regards
Alexander
Alexander Neilson
Neilson Productions Limited
alexan...@neilson.net.nz
021 329 681
022 456 2326
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Ben
> Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
> Date: 1 October 2013 1:05:01 AM
On 26/09/2013 09:52, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
Most people here were probably not of working age in 1985 ;-)
Yes, I was lazy in most of the adaptation, but I think it serves a
good starting point for market based suggestions to the route slot
problem.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam^H^H^H^H route deaggregation. Your idea will
On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
>> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>
> If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is with
> respect
> to routing table slots.
h
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 02:10:47AM -0400, Ryan McIntosh wrote:
> I don't respond to many of these threads but I have to say I've
> contested this one too only to have to beaten into my head that a /64
> is "appropriate".. it still hasn't stuck, but unfortunately rfc's for
> other protocols depend o
On Sep 26, 2013, at 13:18 , Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 1:07 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Darren Pilgrim
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>>>
>>> The
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> Therefore, I don't see any reason to artificially inflate
>> the routing table by conserving, and then making
>> orgs come back for additional allocations.
>
> I'm not convinced of
> In ipv4 there are 482319 routes and 45235 ASNs in the DFZ this week, of that
> 18619 ~40% announce only one prefix. given the distribution of prefix counts
> across ASNs it's quite reasonable to conclude that the consumption of
> routing table slots is not primarly a property of the number of p
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
>> There is no bit length which allocations of /20's and larger won't
>> quickly exhaust. It's not about the number of bits, it's about how we
>> choose to use them.
>
> True, but how many orgs do we expect to fall into that category? If th
On Sep 27, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
>> There is no bit length which allocations of /20's and larger won't
>> quickly exhaust. It's not about the number of bits, it's about how we
>> choose to use them.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>
> True, but how many orgs do we expect t
> There is no bit length which allocations of /20's and larger won't
> quickly exhaust. It's not about the number of bits, it's about how we
> choose to use them.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
True, but how many orgs do we expect to fall into that category? If the
majority are getting /32, and onl
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> Okay, I'm just curious, what size do you (and other's of similar opinion)
> think the IPv6 space _should_ have been in order to allow us to not have to
> jump through conservation hoops ever again? 128 bits isn't enough, clearly,
> 256? 1k?
On 2013-09-27, at 10:40, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Ryan McIntosh wrote:
>
>> It's a waste, even if we're "planning for the future", no one house
>> needs a /64 sitting on their lan.. or at least none I can sensibly
>> think of o_O.
>
> Okay, I'm just curious, what size do you
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Ryan McIntosh wrote:
It's a waste, even if we're "planning for the future", no one house
needs a /64 sitting on their lan.. or at least none I can sensibly
think of o_O.
Okay, I'm just curious, what size do you (and other's of similar opinion)
think the IPv6 space _should
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> Oh this sure will be fun. For a good time, see how GSMA handles connectivity
> with IPXs.
Hi Scott,
For those of us who aren't deeply engrossed in GSM mobile telecom,
would you offer a synopsis?
Thanks,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ..
On Sep 26, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> y'know, it's funny. there is a market in ipv4 space. there is no
> market in routing table slots. perhaps this is not conspiracy but
> rather the market is speaking.
That easily could be the case. So how well is has the current model
been work
I don't respond to many of these threads but I have to say I've
contested this one too only to have to beaten into my head that a /64
is "appropriate".. it still hasn't stuck, but unfortunately rfc's for
other protocols depend on the blocks to now be a /64..
It's a waste, even if we're "planning f
Yup. Seen/Heard all that. Even tooted that horn for a while.
/64 is an artifical boundary - many/most IANA/RIR delegations are in the top
/32
which is functionally the same as handing out traditional /16s. Some RIR
client
are "bigger" and demand more, so they get the v6 equvalent of /14s o
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:29:17PM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>
> The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space
> exhaustion. IPv4's address space was too sm
Oh this sure will be fun. For a good time, see how GSMA handles
connectivity with IPXs.
On Sep 26, 2013 1:28 PM, "William Herrin" wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >
> >> sounds just like folks in
>> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
> The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space
> exhaustion.
no. ipv4 was the second time, not the first
randy
On Sep 26, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 1:07 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Darren Pilgrim
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>>>
>>> The
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> That's just it, I really don't think we actually have an exhaustion risk
> with IPv6. IPv6 is massive beyond massive.
Hi Darren,
At one point, I saw a proposal to allocate IPv6 /15's to ISPs. One /16
so they could overlay 32 bits of IPv4
On 9/26/2013 1:07 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Darren Pilgrim
wrote:
On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space
exhaustion. IPv4's
On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>
> The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space exhaustion.
> IPv4's address space was too small for su
On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space
exhaustion. IPv4's address space was too small for such large thinking.
IPv6 is far beyond enough to use such all
y'know, it's funny. there is a market in ipv4 space. there is no
market in routing table slots. perhaps this is not conspiracy but
rather the market is speaking.
of course, we can use the idea of a market in routing table slots,
rack space, or coffee to distract from the artificial problems in
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
>> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>
> If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is with
> respect
> to routing table slots.
> T
ommunity needs to choose one of these paths.
My 2 cents
Marla
-Original Message-
From: Patrick [mailto:na...@haller.ws]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:23 AM
To: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
On 2013-09-26 08:52, bmann
On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is with
respect
to routing table slots. As it is, we have no real feedback mechanism in the
present
syste
On 2013-09-26 08:52, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
Yeah, but who doesn't run CIDR now?
Get everyone in the IPv6 pool now; we'll inevitably add hacks later
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
/bill
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 06:45:02AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Each site should get at least a /48.
>
> Stop worrying about dense-packing the IP space in IPv6. This is IPv4-think.
> IPv6 is intended to be sparsely allocated.
>
> Ow
Each site should get at least a /48.
Stop worrying about dense-packing the IP space in IPv6. This is IPv4-think.
IPv6 is intended to be sparsely allocated.
Owen
On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I raised actually this concern during our IP resource applicati
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Date: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
11:10:52AM +0800 Quoting Nathanael C. Cariaga (nccari...@stluke.com.ph):
> Hi,
>
> I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
>
> On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is m
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Date: Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at
08:00:44AM -1000 Quoting Randy Bush (ra...@psg.com):
> > I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
> > currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
> > get our /48 a
I'll revisit our application then. Thank you for the info.
-nathan
On 9/25/2013 12:11 PM, Nurul Islam wrote:
I believe you can get multiple /48 from APNIC. You will not be evaluated
under HD ratio but as discrete network (no iBGP running among them). Here
it is the policy [http://www.apnic.net/
I believe you can get multiple /48 from APNIC. You will not be evaluated
under HD ratio but as discrete network (no iBGP running among them). Here
it is the policy [http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.5.2]
Regards
Roman
On 25/09/13 11:42 AM, "Nathanael C. Cariaga"
wrote:
>We
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
doing multi-homing and having a /48 in each site would be very big waste
of IP resources.
IPv6 was designed with an expectation of having /48 per geographical site
and this is perfectly fine.
I have a /48 at home.
What is more of a concern i
On 9/24/13 8:10 PM, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
>
> On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough for
> our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years assuming that
> this can be farmed ou
Hi,
I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough for
our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years assuming that
this can be farmed out to our multiple sites. What makes this
complicated for u
Hi All,
Thank you for these insights. We'll look into all of these and review
again our options on how we can further proceed in our IPv6 deployment.
Regards,
-nathan
On 9/25/2013 2:33 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
wrote:
I've been Googl
We got our /48 from APNIC..
-nathan
On 9/25/2013 2:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
get our /48 allocation from our RIR
e
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: September-24-13 12:19
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: NANOG Mailing List
> Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> I
Everyone is following the same policies. a /48 PER SITE.did you
request enough addresses from your RIR?
Bryan Socha
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
wrote:
> I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the minimum
> IPv6 advertisement on BGP. My concern is that I am running a network that
> is operating on multiple sites and currently rolling out our IPv6 on the
> peri
On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
>> currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
>> get our /48 allocation from our RIR
>
> excuse, but which rir handed out a /48 under which policy?
>
> randy
RIPE will give you a /48 of IPv6 PI
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-552#IPv6_PI_Assignments
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
On 24 Sep 2013, at 19:00, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
>> currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter leve
> I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
> currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
> get our /48 allocation from our RIR
excuse, but which rir handed out a /48 under which policy?
randy
On 24/09/2013 14:49, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.
I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the
minimum IPv6 advertisement on BGP.
You need to work on your google-fu then ...
https://labs.ripe.net/Members
On 9/24/13 6:47 AM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathanael C. Cariaga [mailto:nccari...@stluke.com.ph]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:50 AM
> To: NANOG Mailing List
> Subject: minimum IPv6 announcement size
>
>> Hi,
>>
>
-Original Message-
From: Nathanael C. Cariaga [mailto:nccari...@stluke.com.ph]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:50 AM
To: NANOG Mailing List
Subject: minimum IPv6 announcement size
>Hi,
>
>Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.
>
>I've been
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.
I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the
minimum IPv6 advertisement on BGP. My concern is that I am running a
network that is operating on multiple sites and currently rolling out
our IPv6 on the per
70 matches
Mail list logo
