Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
On 2/06/2007, at 4:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote: the average number of v4 prefixes per AS is ~10, and it's rising. In v6, the goal is that every PI site can use a single prefix**, meaning the v6 routing table will be at least one (and two or even three eventually) orders of magnitude smaller than the v4 one. how much of the v4 prefix count is de-aggregation for te or by TWits? why won't they do this in v6? See slide 24 of: http://www.2007.apricot.net/presentation/apia-future-routing/apia- future-routing-vince-fuller.pdf nearby slides are interesting, too. -- Nathan Ward
Code for IPv6 test for content providers (was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)
On 30/05/2007, at 10:55 AM, Nathan Ward wrote: I've got an idea that just fell out of my brain for web content providers to get a handle on their 'ipv6-ability' - how many eyeballs they would lose by adding www records. I've implemented this, with some frills. Code is at http://www.braintrust.co.nz/ipv6wwwtest/ and is probably rough around the edges. I'm not really a JavaScript hacker so it probably isn't terribly amazing quality, but it seems to work OK for me - I've been running it on several of my websites with a large range of user clue+access+OS+browser+ISP as visitors and I've had no complaints. The code is running on the page above, too. The default timeout in the tarball is too high, 1-2 is probably adequate. Please let me know if you use it, or if you do something similar or use it for inspiration or whatever. In addition, I'm sure we'd all love to see any statistics you can share. Enjoy! -- Nathan Ward
Re: ULA BoF
On 2-jun-2007, at 1:27, Fred Baker wrote: But ULAs *do* require router magic. They require a policy to be in place that causes them to not be advertised unless the policy is overridden, and a policy that doesn't believe them even if they are mistakenly advertised. Well, there is no such thing as an out-of-the-box BGP configuration, so that's to be expected. Although ISPs tend to let packets with RFC 1918 source addresses slip out from time to time, they're actually pretty good at rejecting RFC 1918 routes: currently, route-views.oregon-ix.net doesn't have the 10.0.0.0, 172.16.0.0 or 192.168.0.0 networks in its BGP table (there are two entries for 192.0.2.0, though). So in IPv4 the magic is of sufficiently quality.
Re: NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)
There are indeed a few thorny issues with this approach; the largest issue is that all connectivity becomes DNS-dependent and raw IP addresses (from both the inside and outside) become virtually useless. Running servers behind this scheme, while doable, is difficult. When an ISP's caching name servers ignore your 3600 TTL and substitute an 86400 TTL you end up disconnected for ~12 hours instead of ~30 minutes- That's unacceptable for a almost any company willing to go through the trouble of getting an ASN. -Don
