> > When you have a large company, the company is also split
> over several
> > administrative sites, in some cases you might have a single
> > administrative group covering several sites though, this
> allows you to
> > provide them with a single /48 as they are one group they will know
> >
Hi,
there have been regular IPv6 workshops both at APRICOT (www.apricot.net)
and SANOG (www.sanog.org), for the last few years.
Nathan Ward wrote:
self-guided)? Looking to send several 1st and 2nd tier guys, for some
platform/vendor-agnostic training.
Any clues?
If you want books, http://
On 1-jun-2007, at 10:09, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that a separate /48 per site is better regardless of whether
or not the company has contracted with a single ISP for all sites, or
not. As far as I am concerned if there is a separate access circuit,
then it is
> > I believe that a separate /48 per site is better regardless
> of whether
> > or not the company has contracted with a single ISP for all
> sites, or
> > not. As far as I am concerned if there is a separate access
> circuit,
> > then it is a site and it deserves its own /48 assignment/al
This report has been generated at Fri Jun 1 21:47:25 2007 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
BGP Update Report
Interval: 18-May-07 -to- 31-May-07 (13 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS4637
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS17486 35740 1.0% 334.0 -- SWIFTEL1-AP Swiftel
Communications Pty Ltd/People Telecom Lt
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 1-jun-2007, at 10:09, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I believe that a separate /48 per site is better regardless of whether
> > or not the company has contracted with a single ISP for all sites, or
> > not. As far as
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If an ISP wants to aggregate their IPv6 traffic, they will announce
one block for their entire global network. Then, internally, they
will assign /48s in LA from a western USA internal allocation
and /48s in Hamburg from a northwestern Europe internal
allocation.
Charlie Allom wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:28:34PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> I am spamming this to NANOG, as there is bound to be ISP's out there
>> and other service providers who might have something cool to add to
>
> I have plans to use IPv6 on people's ADSL so they can subscribe t
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 09:25:54AM +0100, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>
> On 5/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I just now got from a 6 hours beer fest with ISP/CERT/military/etc. guys
> >who have been working on these attacks on Estonian infrastructure for the
> >past 3
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 09:25:54AM +0100, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> On 5/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I just now got from a 6 hours beer fest with ISP/CERT/military/etc. guys
> >who have been working on these attacks on Estonian infrastructure for the
> >past 3 we
Thus spake "Vince Fuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes, as NAT becomes ubiquitous, a larger number of private
networks will be behind ever smaller prefixes that are assigned
to sites so the per-site prefix length will decrease.
I think you mean increase. Even without NAT, this is going to happen
> 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 c
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, 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 sm
>> how much of the v4 prefix count is de-aggregation for te or by TWits?
>> why won't they do this in v6?
> wee, lookie! redistribute connected
whee! lookie! minds disconnected, at least from public good.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> how much of the v4 prefix count is de-aggregation for te or by TWits?
> >> why won't they do this in v6?
> > wee, lookie! redistribute connected
>
> whee! lookie! minds disconnected, at least from public good.
Yes :( sadly I suspect that is not the
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.
>
> h
Thus spake "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 th
18 matches
Mail list logo
