Alexandru Petrescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I am working on the device management for an initial set of about >> 10000 computers for the end of 2008. Those computers will be included >> in a Internet subscription by an Internet Service Provider. > > Is this ISP kind of ADSL home subscription? Or is it Enterprise?
Yes, this is Internet ADSL subscriptions for household. [...] > The /64 network prefix depending on the central server - hmmm... Do you > consider that the PC at the user's site is part of a network which is > _already_ IPv6? For example, an ADSL operator deploys IPv6 at home and > there's already an IPv6 /64 prefix assigned to each ADSL subscriber. > One would better re-use that prefix, I think, instead of assigning new > prefixes through some tunnels. > > If the ISP doesn't deploy IPv6 to subscriber then there are several > methods to deploy IPv6 to a SOHO when one has control on the ADSL box - > 6to4 is a possibility and there are others. With 6to4, the end user > gets a /48 out of a single IPv4 address. In the first place the end user will get a dynamic IPv4 address for Internet connectivity, but will also get an IPv6 address through the VPN network. Through this VPN IPv6-in-IPv4 network the user can access the IPv6 backbone, or other computers in the same network with global IPv6 addresses. [...] >> Each home with the same Internet connection will share the same /64 >> prefix. Each server will have a /48 prefix and could handle up to >> 2^^16 different home networks. Likely this means I will need a /44 or >> /40 prefix as soon as I use more than two management servers. >> >> Should I use site local or global adresses for each computer, given >> that it could be connected to the IPv6 backbone ? Can my application >> for a /32 prefix could be granted for such a need ? > > No, no use of the site-local addresses, being deprecated. Go for > global addresses. If your technical solution is IPv6-through-IPv4 then > you may as well go for link-local addresses only (fe80::). The IPv6 network will also be used for connections between users, which may be behind firewalls, so I need the addresses to be routed. Likely link-local will not be adequate > I think yes, your application for a /32 could be granted, but I have no > precise idea. I would be more reasonable and ask for a /48, because > you're talking about tens of thousands of subnets. Is 65535 subnets > enough? Do you ask a RIR (RIPE)? Or do you ask a super-provider? I must admit I was looking for answers and clarification before any request for a particular prefix. Moreover, I am not sure I am the one who need to register the prefix, because I will provide a management and IPv6 service to an Internet Service Provider for its customers. Maybe this is what you call 'super-provider'? >> Should I use 64 bit host id for the computer, or, given the high >> number of /64 subnet needed, I should go for /80 net prefix and 48 >> bit only for host id ? > > That is a very good question that deserves pondering over, a lot. > > Software-wise: if you use the 64bit Ethernet IDs then there's much > widely available software for address auto-configuration, whereas for > more than 64bit (/80 net prefix) one needs to use DHCPv6 - less > implementations, but available. OK > If you deliver /64 to a household and the manager of the household > can't, or doesn't know, use DHCPv6 then that household is effectively > limited to using one single IPv6 subnet. At least by the current state > of affairs in standardization. This may prove constraining for the > deployment of IPv6. Many households have multiple IPv4 subnets (one for > wifi, one gaming, one printing, one kids, etc.) and would like to > migrate to IPv6 while keeping the same multi-subnet structure. So it is > more interesting to deliver less than /64 to a household (e.g. /60) so > that the household manager can further split it up to /64. This is an interesting point. I was thinking that household will preferably masquerading techniques for internal network, but likely it would be more convenient if they can use global addressing with adequate firewalling. Then /60 or /56 may be preferred over /64, you are right. > But, I'm not sure I understand the goal: is the goal to deliver IPv6 to > household? Or is to simply use IPv6 to remotely administer some > machines? Or is the goal to deploy a remote management system that is > just compatible with IPv6 (be ready for IPv6 when it arrives)? And > finally, is the household already having IPv6 or not. The household will have a default IPv4 connectivity, and an extra IPv6 connectivity thanks to the management network. Later on maybe the provider will switch to IPv6 only, but this is not scheduled right now. The current goal is to include all the computers in a IPv6 network for remote management and peer 2 peer exchanges with the collateral effect to have an IPv6 ready computer and a uplink to the IPv6 backbone. So the IPv6 connectivity is not the primary target, but somehow be practical. Thanks for you comments ! -- Warly _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ipv6.org https://lists.ipv6.org/mailman/listinfo/users
