I see there is a long thread on IPv6 address assignment going, and I
apologize that I did not read all of it, but I still have some unanswered
questions.
I believe someone posted the ARIN recommendation that carriers assign out
/64's and /56's, and in a few limited cases, /48.
I can understand co
Some of the comments here have cleared things up a bit.
I suspect we will see NAT doing some 4to6 and 6to4 through migration, but
there is little reason to use NAT in place of stateful firewall in the v6 to
v6 world.
I think RFC3041 (Privacy Extensions) and RFC4864 (Local Network Protection)
answ
>* /32 for ISPs unless they can justify more
>* /48 for subscribers unless they can justify more
>* /64 when you know for certain that one and only one subnet will ever be
required
>* /128 when you know for certain you're dealing with a single device
>* Sparse allocation so whichever size you choos
On Jan 3, 2008 3:52 AM, Rick Astley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Take someone like Comcast with ~12 million subscribers.
>
> >It would take an IPv6 /24 to get 16.7 million /48's (2^24). With a net
> efficiency of 10% they are going to need to be allocated 120
On Jan 3, 2008 4:10 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Rick Astley wrote:
>
> > If Bob has a multihomed network, he can't just give one /48 to a
> customer in
> > NY and the next one to a customer in CA unless he wants to fill
As much as I don't want to resurrect this conversation again or beat a dead
(now glued) horse: In the SOHO arena, today's NAT users may or may not opt
to use SPI down the road.
Many people just opt for the cheapest working solution and use defaults, so
what we end up depends on what vendors like L
While I am not sure I fully understand your suggestion, I don't think it
would be that hard to set up manually.
Sure it would require asking the individual peers for their black hole
communities, but of they don't have one they are unlikely to honor the
infrastructure you describe anyway.
Assume
I see your point, but I think maintaining the box for the control session
would also require a decent amount of work.
Presumably, since you must all adhere to some quasi-standard to communicate
with the control peer, you could probably also agree on creating a standard
BGP community (ie. 64666:666
It does sort of shed light on a sobering fact that some of the PCCW's of the
world are not using proper filtering, and with a coordinated effort, someone
could inject a large number of routes into the global routing table through
them effectively taking offline much of the Internet.
Anything more
