On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:34:39 -0500, Paul de Weerd
wrote:
"It makes renumbering easier" is a very poor argument. Renumbering is
just as easy wether you use /64s or /126s. Simply replace the first
64 bits and .. tadaa.wav .. you've renumbered.
I can't seem to grasp why anyone is worried abo
On 2012-06-22, Mark Felder wrote:
> Now /127s would of course be equal do using /31s in IPv4 which I find
> interesting but dangerous (compatibility is sketchy outside Cisco from
> what I've seen,
IPv4 /31's work nicely in OpenBSD since 5.0, by the way.
I'm using them for point-to-point links
On 2012-06-21, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:34:51 -0500, Ryan Kirk wrote:
>
>> In my limited experience with ipv6, this has been the case. The
>> provider has you on a /64 of their own (not part of your /48), so your
>> WAN interface would have one of their IP's on it, and they sho
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 02:42:24PM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote:
| On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:52:18 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
|
| >On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:39:24 -0500, Rod Whitworth
| >wrote:
| >
| >> It is not a "school of thought" - it is how it is. I have seen one /126
| >> out in the wild but it i
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:38:04 -0500, Simon Perreault
wrote:
This is ridiculous. You should be allocating all your PtP links out of a
single prefix protected by an ACL at your border. All packets to the PtP
prefix need to be dropped. You should be doing this no matter the size
of your Pt
On 2012-06-22 09:13, Mark Felder wrote:
All someone out on the 'net needs to do
is scan up through
your address space on the link as quickly as possible, sending single
packets at
all the non-existent addresses on the link, and watch as your router
CPU starts
to churn keeping track of all the nei
>On 6/21/12 7:52 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:39:24 -0500, Rod Whitworth
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It is not a "school of thought" - it is how it is. I have seen one /126
>>> out in the wild but it is very lonely.
>>
>> I work at an ISP/datacenter. We use /126s for the link net. Handing
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:00:17 -0500, Daniel Ouellet
wrote:
You cold read the RFC 5375 for example, or a few more like 4291, 3587,
and other like it.
Interesting. RFC 6547 moves "Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers
Considered Harmful" (RFC 3627) to Historic status to reflect the upda
On 2012-06-21 22:00, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
On 2012-06-21 17:22, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2012-06-21 15:50, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
I have read a great deal regarding IPv6 and IIRC, if I subnet my
network block, my ISP would have to know it has to route traffic to that
subnet through
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:52:18 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:39:24 -0500, Rod Whitworth
>wrote:
>
>> It is not a "school of thought" - it is how it is. I have seen one /126
>> out in the wild but it is very lonely.
>
>I work at an ISP/datacenter. We use /126s for the link net.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:00:17 -0500, Daniel Ouellet
wrote:
Have fun, but please read the RFC and don't suggest assignment based on
school of thought. Try to do it right from the start and save you pain
down the road now.
The number of customers asking for IPv6 right now I can probably c
Heya
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera <
h...@osvaldobarrera.com.ar> wrote:
> On 2012-06-21 17:22, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > On 2012-06-21 15:50, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> >> I have read a great deal regarding IPv6 and IIRC, if I subnet my
> >> network block, my ISP woul
On 6/21/12 7:52 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:39:24 -0500, Rod Whitworth
wrote:
It is not a "school of thought" - it is how it is. I have seen one /126
out in the wild but it is very lonely.
I work at an ISP/datacenter. We use /126s for the link net. Handing out
/64's "becaus
On 2012-06-21 17:22, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2012-06-21 15:50, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>> I have read a great deal regarding IPv6 and IIRC, if I subnet my
>> network block, my ISP would have to know it has to route traffic to that
>> subnet through the WAN IP address of my router.
>
> Yes
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:39:24 -0500, Rod Whitworth
wrote:
It is not a "school of thought" - it is how it is. I have seen one /126
out in the wild but it is very lonely.
I work at an ISP/datacenter. We use /126s for the link net. Handing out
/64's "because you can" is stupid in my worthless
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:28:05 -0400, Michael Lambert wrote:
>On 21 Jun 2012, at 18:04, Mark Felder wrote:
>
>> The provider shouldn't be using a /64 for the link net. That means your
>router is getting the broadcasts from everyone else on that link net. The
>provider should be setting aside somethi
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:28:05 -0500, Michael Lambert
wrote:
There is a school of thought that says point-to-point links should be
allocated /64s, just like LAN subnets. Not everyone agrees. I like
/120s to
keep things octet-aligned for reverse DNS.
I was under the assumption that all cu
On 21 Jun 2012, at 18:04, Mark Felder wrote:
> The provider shouldn't be using a /64 for the link net. That means your
router is getting the broadcasts from everyone else on that link net. The
provider should be setting aside something like a /64 for link nets and
actually be giving you /126s.
Th
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:34:51 -0500, Ryan Kirk wrote:
In my limited experience with ipv6, this has been the case. The
provider has you on a /64 of their own (not part of your /48), so your
WAN interface would have one of their IP's on it, and they should tell
you exactly what it should be. Just
In my limited experience with ipv6, this has been the case. The
provider has you on a /64 of their own (not part of your /48), so your
WAN interface would have one of their IP's on it, and they should tell
you exactly what it should be. Just as it's done in IPv4. Your own
personal /48 is then route
On 2012-06-21 15:50, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
I have read a great deal regarding IPv6 and IIRC, if I subnet my
network block, my ISP would have to know it has to route traffic to that
subnet through the WAN IP address of my router.
Yes. If they don't allow that, then they don't know what th
On 2012-06-21 09:52, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2012-06-21 03:46, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>> My assigned block is 2800:40:402::0/48
>> My default gateway is 2800:40:402::: (it's inside my assigned
>> block).
>
> Hugo,
>
> Friendly suggestion: read a book on IPv6. If you had understo
On 2012-06-21 03:46, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
My assigned block is 2800:40:402::0/48
My default gateway is 2800:40:402::: (it's inside my assigned
block).
Hugo,
Friendly suggestion: read a book on IPv6. If you had understood the
above information, you wouldn't be talking about "br
On 2012-06-21 04:39, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> Hugo Osvaldo Barrera writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> ... how does your ISP provide you IPv6 connectivity? I can't see why
>>> someone couldn't use proper subnetting, being given a /48. You should
>>> also tell us how you get v4 connectivity, I thi
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera writes:
[...]
>> ... how does your ISP provide you IPv6 connectivity? I can't see why
>> someone couldn't use proper subnetting, being given a /48. You should
>> also tell us how you get v4 connectivity, I think.
>
> I get a /48 block, and a gateway I should use. As for I
On 2012-06-21 03:05, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> Hugo Osvaldo Barrera writes:
>
>> Hi,
>
> Hi.
>
>> I'm trying to evaluate how to set up my OpenBSD server as an internet
>> gateway.
>>
>> I've a static IPv4 address, and a /48 IPv6 block.
>> I've already NATed IPv4 using PF, but I'm in dou
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera writes:
> Hi,
Hi.
> I'm trying to evaluate how to set up my OpenBSD server as an internet
> gateway.
>
> I've a static IPv4 address, and a /48 IPv6 block.
> I've already NATed IPv4 using PF, but I'm in doubt on how to bridge the
> IPv6 part without breaking the IPv4 NAT.
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
