On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
each cable modem a /64?
That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm not an IS
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
>>> each cable modem a /64?
>>
>>
>> That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
>> discussi
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And before anyone says "there are 281474976710656 /48s!", just
remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
bet when someone said "four-point-two BILLION addresses", someone else
said "no $...@#%'ing way we will EVER use THAT many"
Let's
In message <498a3514.1050...@internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > And before anyone says "there are 281474976710656 /48s!", just
> > remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
> > bet when someone said "four-point-two BILL
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
>
> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
> of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
their stuff behind a fi
Anthony Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll stil
Mark Andrews wrote:
Assign the prefixes using PD and use aggregate routes out side of the pop.
IPv6 nodes are designed to be renumbered. Use the technology. Stop thinking
IPv4 and start thinking IPv6. IPv6 is not just IPv4 with bigger addresses.
Currently with v4 I have one (majority
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:41:01 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
> And ARP tables are propogated around networks? No, they're local to a
> router.
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being clear:
As I posted just before in reply to MarkA - I'm ho
In message <498a3ca5.6060...@internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
> Anthony Roberts wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
> >> of problems. A /64 isn't needed n
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
>
> Anthony Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
>> prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
>> then delegate chunks out of that.
>>
> My apologies for not being clear:
>
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <498a3ca5.6060...@internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
>> Anthony Roberts wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
>>> wrote:
>>>
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems.
On 5/02/2009, at 2:28 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise
all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it
is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being cl
On 5/02/2009, at 2:35 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they
think
if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a
firewall.
A *lot* of these problems we face are conceptual rather than
technological.
For more, refer t
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Well, it is static, but like most static IP services offerd by an ISP,
if you leave you can't take your addresses with you. Even with DSL from
AT&T if you move locations you get a different subnet.
The issue is multiple POPs in a geographic region where customers could
In message <498a40c1.8060...@internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
>
>
> Anthony Roberts wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
> > prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
> > then delegate chunks out
-- m...@internode.com.au wrote:
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft
Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of PD?
If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter drop in a
park. Especially interested in CPE etc.
-
>Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
>of problems.
Perhaps, time moves ever forward.
>A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6). Setting
>the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own statically
is
>insane and will blow out provider'
>My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6
>means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
>This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have to
>implement that.
Then work with them to break them of this dis-illusion.
>
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew
Moyle-Croft wrote:
> My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6
> means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
> This means that I have a problem with routing table siz
TJ wrote:
However, many do not "have" DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not capable.
Also - does DHCPv6 currently have an option for prefix length? Just asking.
I'm under no allusion that a /64 is going to be optional - it's really
too late which is sad. I think people have just latched o
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew
Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means that I have a problem w
On 4-Feb-2009, at 16:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet,
just an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL
& Cable modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
All the advice I have heard about ad
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
I see people predicting that giving everybody a /56 is insane and will
blow out routing tables. I don't quite understand that; at the regional
ISP with which I am most familiar 40,000 or so internal/customer routes
in BGP, and I have not noticed anything fa
On 4-Feb-2009, at 22:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
I see people predicting that giving everybody a /56 is insane and
will blow out routing tables. I don't quite understand that; at the
regional ISP with which I am most familiar 40,000 or so internal/
c
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030,
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming
that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Currently with v4 I have one (majority) of customers where they have
dynamic addresses. For those I'm happy to use PD - but my point was
that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean static allocations
for all customers. This is my fear, is NOT being able to
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
I'm under no allusion that a /64 is going to be optional - it's really
too late which is sad. I think people have just latched onto it and now
accept it and defend it without thinking about "is this still the
answer?". Just because it's in an RFC doesn't mean it's
On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet,
just an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL
& Cable modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
IPv4 thinking.
A single /64 isn't eno
On 5 feb 2009, at 2:20, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of
PD? If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter
drop in a park. Especially interested in CPE etc.
I've tested this years ago and it works just fine. Of c
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable
modem, then we may very well be rec
On 2009Feb4, at 8:56 PM, TJ wrote:
However, many do not "have" DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not
capable.
Maybe upgrades, service packs and updates will make them capable of
using DHCPv6 for useful functions such as finding the address of an
available name server by the time IPv6-on
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> [...] I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
> nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
> address for all of them. I have 2 private /24's using a single public
> IPv4 address ri
On 5-Feb-2009, at 13:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
This is the exact same bull as the /8 allocations in the early
days of IPv4.
There are only 256 /8s in IPv4.
There are 72,057,594,037,927,936 /56s in IPv6. If you object to where
you think this is going, then perhaps it's more palatable to co
On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
A single /64 isn't enough for a home user, because their gateway is
a router and needs a different prefix at both sides. Users may also
want to subnet their own network. So they need at least something
like a /60.
Mr. van B, your comments would b
Joe Abley wrote:
Note that I am not denying the faint aroma of defecation in the air, nor
the ghost of address assignment policies past.
Maybe because by sheer coincidence 2**32 /32 is exactly the same as ipv4
2**32 /32?
Maybe because by sheer coincidence 2**48 /48 is exactly the same a
On Feb 5, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
...An IPv4 DHCP server gives me five things: ...DNS addresses and a
domain...
==
Actually, lots more than five. E.g., NTP servers, preferred WINS
servers (sorry, AD servers) and many other interesting (to some)
items.
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:18:15 -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On 5-Feb-2009, at 13:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
This is the exact same bull as the /8 allocations in the early days
of IPv4.
...
So in fact it's not *exactly* the same.
Just because the address space is mind-alteringly larger does not mea
John Schnizlein wrote:
On 2009Feb4, at 8:56 PM, TJ wrote:
However, many do not "have" DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not
capable.
Maybe upgrades, service packs and updates will make them capable of
using DHCPv6 for useful functions such as finding the address of an
available name serve
James R. Cutler wrote:
Actually, lots more than five. E.g., NTP servers, preferred WINS
servers (sorry, AD servers) and many other interesting (to some) items.
And, the DNS domain my laptop joins depends on the network where it is
connected in accordance with business policies in effect. Thus
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
> wrote:
> > On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >> I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
> >> an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to ea
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:42:27PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for nearly 15
>> years.
>
> So you were already doing NAT in 1994? Then you were ahead of the curve.
Ahh, the 90s. No n
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:12:19PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> Operationally, this has been met from my experience. In fact, all of these
> items are handled with stateless DHCPv6 in coordination with SLAAC.
> Stateful DHCPv6 seems to be limited with some vendors, but unless they plan
> to do pro
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, John Osmon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > [...] I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
> > nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
> > address for all of them. I have 2 private
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 06:15:02PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> You might like to review the DHCPv6 specification and try some of its
>> implementations.
Joe is being a little overzealous. Unfortunately, there are very
few DHCPv6 clients in the wild today. I think this has grown slightly
since t
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:42:27 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for nearly
15 years.
So you were already doing NAT in 1994? Then you were ahead of the curve.
"NAT" didn't exist in '94. But, Yes. And, Yes. I had several computers
321-663-0421 Cell
-Original Message-
From: Sven-Haegar Koch [mailto:hae...@sdinet.de]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:11 PM
To: John Osmon
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
space (IPv6-MW)]
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, John Osmon wrote:
&
On 5-Feb-2009, at 16:14, David W. Hankins wrote:
The truth is it is actually not very likely that you can build an
IPv6 network today using DHCPv6, unless you have large populations
of those systems.
The particular example I've been working with is with a JUNOSe server
and an IOS client whi
In message , Sven-Haegar Ko
ch writes:
> If the end-users really get public addresses for their WII and game-PCs,
> do you really think they won't just open the box totally in their
> firewall/router and catch/create even more problems?
You mean they don't already list as the DMZ addres
This is falling outside of the IPv6/RFC-1918 discussion, so
I'll only answer questions with questions... If there's need for
a real discussion, I'll let someone change the subject, and continue
on...
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:11:13AM +0100, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
[...]
> > The flip side shows u
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 11:36:25AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
[...]
> WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
> without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
Amen brother Mark! Can I get a hallelujah from the chorus?
(Meanwhile, I'll continue to l
Leo writes:
>Customers don't want static addresses.
>
>They want DNS that works, with their own domain names, forward and
>reverse.
>
>They want renumbering events to be infrequent, and announced in
>advance.
>
>They want the box the cable/dsl/fios provider to actually work,
>that is be able to do
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:30:12PM -0800, Joe Abley wrote:
> The particular example I've been working with is with a JUNOSe server and
> an IOS client which, as a solution for business DSL service, seems
> deployable.
Yes! Sorry, I just try to emit a little more skepticism about
pervasive clien
George William Herbert wrote:
Perhaps there are better ways to do all of this from the start.
But IPv6 is not helping any of the ways we have evolved to deal
with it.
IPv6 does just fine with dynamic addressing and with static addressing.
I'm not sure what your problem is. An ISP can still
>So it fails in scenarios where enforcing network policy is important.
If the policy is address specific, perhaps.
If the policy is segment specific, no prob.
/TJ
PS - for emphasis, I am not arguing strictly for or against either SLAAC or
DHCPv6.
Both can work, and IMHO should be allowed to do
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
telling me I need 18 billion, billion addresses to cover 2 laptops, a Wii, 3
tivos, a router, and an access point?
You have more computing power in your house than the Fortune 500 did 40
years ago to manage their entire billing, payroll etc.
They had tho
> Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
> that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6.
what is "nat compliant?"
randy
Randy Bush wrote:
Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6.
what is "nat compliant?"
Quite unfortunately, that has come to mean something. Specifically, TCP
or UDP (and no other IP protocol numbers) and application pro
Mark Andrews wrote:
WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
As I'm sure you know, you can tell the difference between an Internet
evangelist and someone who mans the support lines by how they fee
In message <498bddac.7060...@eeph.com>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
> > without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
>
> As I'm sure you know, you can tell the difference between an Interne
"David W. Hankins" writes:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:42:27PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
>>> I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for nearly 15
>>> years.
>>
>> So you were already doing NAT in 1994? Then you were ahead
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
My comment was regarding customers believing that they were going to, by
default, get a statically allocated range, whatever the length.
If most customers get dynamically assigned (via PD or other means) then
the issue is not a major one.
Dynamic or static; how
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Paul Timmins wrote:
> John Schnizlein wrote:
> >
> > Maybe upgrades, service packs and updates will make them capable of using
> > DHCPv6 for useful functions such as finding the address of an available name
> > server by the time IPv6-only networks are in operation.
>
> And if
On 6 feb 2009, at 1:15, Ricky Beam wrote:
I see IPv6 address space being carved out in huge chunks for reasons
that equate to little more than because the total space is
"inexhaustable". This is the exact same type of mis-management that
plagues us from IPv4's early allocations.
Think of
This is straying from operational to protocol design and implementation,
but as someone who has done a fair bit of both design and implementation...
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The problem is that DHCP seemed like a good idea at the time but it
doesn't make any sense today. We know that parsing
ty thousand users on seven continents with far more than a 1:1
end user to host ratio.
Jamie
-Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljit...@muada.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:42 PM
To: Ricky Beam
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Priva
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> Five things? Really? My DHCP server hands out the following things to
> its clients:
as I've said a few times now, reason #775 that autoconf is a broken
and non-useful 'gadget' for network operators. There is a system today
that does lots o
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
DHCP(v6). Setting the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going
to be their own statically is insane and will blow out provider's
own routing tables more than is rational.
Routing table size will be a function of the number of customers -
*not
My comment was regarding customers believing that they were going to,
by default, get a statically allocated range, whatever the length.
If most customers get dynamically assigned (via PD or other means)
then the issue is not a major one.
MMC
On 06/02/2009, at 8:56 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:
On 6 feb 2009, at 0:55, David W. Hankins wrote:
Exhibit A: With IPv6 Address Autoconfiguration (tm) (patent
pending), you
don't need DHCP. *face plant* The IPv4 mistake you've NOT learned
from
here is "rarp". DCHP does far more than tell a host was address
it should
use.
Actually it g
I think this part of the thread is in danger of leaving the realm of
operational relevance, so I will treat these as my closing arguments.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:48:53PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> It makes more sense to look at it like this. In the 1990s we had:
No, I think that "sh
Randy Bush wrote:
>> Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
>> that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6.
>
> what is "nat compliant?"
RFC 3235 discusses how to make your application work in the Internet
reality that exists today, with NAT boxes everywhere. The do
Joe Abley wrote:
On 4-Feb-2009, at 16:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet,
just an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL &
Cable modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
All the advice I have
Jack Bates wrote:
Dynamic or static; how does this alter the state of the routing table?
A network assigned is a network assigned. In addition, IPv6 has some
decent support for mobile IP, which my limited understanding of says
they enjoy routing tables the rest of us never get to see.
Dynam
On 6/02/2009, at 12:00 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
This assignment policy is NOT enough for every particle of sand on
earth, which is what I thought we were getting.
There is enough for 3616 /64s, or 14 /56s per square centimetre of the
earth's surface, modulo whatever we have set aside for multi
On 6/02/2009, at 1:01 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:12:19PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
Operationally, this has been met from my experience. In fact, all
of these
items are handled with stateless DHCPv6 in coordination with SLAAC.
Stateful DHCPv6 seems to be limited wit
On Feb 7, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 6/02/2009, at 12:00 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
This assignment policy is NOT enough for every particle of sand on
earth, which is what I thought we were getting.
There is enough for 3616 /64s, or 14 /56s per square centimetre of
the earth's surf
>Five things? Really? My DHCP server hands out the following things to its
>clients:
>
>Default Route
>DNS Servers
>Log host
>Domain Name (or, our case, the sub-domain for the office) NIS Domain NIS
>Servers NTP Server WINS Servers SMTP Server POP Server NNTP Server Domain
>suffix search orders.
>as I've said a few times now, reason #775 that autoconf is a broken and
non-
>useful 'gadget' for network operators. There is a system today that does
>lots of client-conf (including the simple default-route +
>dns-server) called DHCP, there MUST be a similarly featured system in the
>'new world o
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
> Jack Bates wrote:
> > Dynamic or static; how does this alter the state of the routing table?...
> Dynamic assigned addresses mean that the BRAS the customer terminates on can
> hand out a range out of a pool assigned to it. This means
Bill Stewart wrote:
That's not because it's doing dynamic address assignment - it's
because you're only advertising the aggregate route from the
BRAS/DSLAM/etc., and you can just as well do the same thing if you're
using static addresses.
Customers can land on one of a fleet of large BRAS ac
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:19:37PM -0500, Robert D. Scott wrote:
> Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
> that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6. And if they do, we should elect a
> NANOG regular to go "POSTAL" and handle the problem. The solution to many of
>
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Andy Davidson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:19:37PM -0500, Robert D. Scott wrote:
Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6. And if they do, we should elect a
NANOG regular to go "POSTAL" and hand
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
> My issue is that customers have indicated that they feel statics are a
> given for IPv6 and this would be a problem if I went from tens of thousands
> of statics to hundreds of thousands of static routes (ie. from a minority to
> all).
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if
they
would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/
all of
them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the
same
question and see if you
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:39:01 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
wrote:
If you want the machine to always have the same address, either enter
it manually or set your DHCP server to always give it the same address.
Manual configuration doesn't scale. With IPv4, it's quite hard to make
this work wit
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if they
would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/all of
them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the same
question a
>As I read it, you don't want to use DHCP because "it's an other service to
>fail." Well, what do you think is broadcasting RA's? My DHCP servers have
>proven far more stable than my routers. (and one of them is a windows
server
>:-)) Most dhcp clients that keep any state will continue using the
In message <00cf01c98b24$efe42680$cfac73...@com>, "TJ" writes:
> Also, it is not true in every case that hosts need a "lot more" than an
> address.
> In many cases all my machine needs is an address, default gateway and DNS
> server (cheat off of v4 | RFC5006 | Stateless DHCPv6).
address
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:39:01 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you want the machine to always have the same address, either enter it
>>> manually or set your DHCP server to always give it the same address.
>>
>> Manual configuratio
>Why would anyone NOT want that?? what replaces that option in current RA
>deployments?
One nit - I like to differentiate between the presence of RAs (which should
be every user where IPv6 is present) and the use of SLAAC (RA + prefix).
Right now - Cheat off of IPv4's config.
(Lack of DHCPv6 cli
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:47 PM, TJ wrote:
>>Why would anyone NOT want that?? what replaces that option in current RA
>>deployments?
>
> One nit - I like to differentiate between the presence of RAs (which should
> be every user where IPv6 is present) and the use of SLAAC (RA + prefix).
>
Sure, bu
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:11:50 -0500, TJ wrote:
Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are "frequent" events.
Cisco's software is not 100% perfect, and when you plug it
>> Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
>> forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
>
>More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are "frequent" events.
>Cisco's software is not 100% perfect, and when you plug it into moderately
>unstable things like phone
On 10/02/2009, at 3:20 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
IPv6 it's easier, but you're still limiting the uptime of your
system to
that of the DHCPv6 server. Router advertisements is much more
robust.
'more robust'... except it doesnt' actually get a device into a usable
state without admins wal
On 11/02/2009, at 10:41 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
It's useless. It does NOT provide enough information alone for a
host to function. In your own words, you need a DNS server. That
is NOT provided by RA thus requires yet another system to get that
bit of configuration to the host -- either en
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:11:50 -0500, TJ wrote:
> > Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
> > forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
>
> More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are "frequent" events.
> Cisco's sof
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
> IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable modem,
> then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
v4 just gets a single IP addr
In message , Scott
Howard writes:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
> > IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable modem,
> > then we may very well be recreating the
Scott Howard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
but my point was that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean
static allocations for all customers.
By design IPv6 should mean _less_
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
