+1 on the Ubiquiti Infinity.. I've used a number of them in various roles..
Linux based and have had 1 hardware failure after a couple years. Try to
keep bridging to a minimum as it'll eat the processor, but for routed
traffic, no issues.
/rh
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:56 AM Tom Samplonius wrot
I may have mis-read it (I admit I didn’t read it all that carefully) but I
think RFC3531 is talking about the strategy for assigning /64s out of a larger
pool (a /56, say).
-Adam
Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
MERLIN
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8
(204) 977-68
I never could understand the motivation behind RFC3531. Just assign /64s. A
single /64 subnet has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 host addresses. It is
enough. Period.
-mel
On May 14, 2024, at 12:54 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren’t doing it “at
Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren't doing it "at scale" and
some of you are, so...
For a very small & dense (on 128-bit scales, anyway) network, is RFC3531 still
the last word in IPv6 allocation strategies?
Right now, we're just approaching it as "pick the next /64 in the ran
*Announcing NANOG 91 Keynote! *
*Juniper Networks' Kireeti Kompella Will Present "Network Digital Twin"*
*SVP and Chief Engineer for the AWAN BU in Juniper Networks, Kompella, will
discuss "digital twins" and how they are used in many contexts.*
As networks ramp up on automation, this is a logica
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:24 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
>> routable.
>>
>
It feels like people are talking past each other when they are saying
"routable" — these are fairly clearly not routable on the Global Internet,
but addresse
From what I looked at IANA Special Registry, this whole range looks
like some service IPs. I mean, they provide specific service within AS.
From me then, it looks like bogon. You should not receive routing for those
addresses from other AS. (PNI is out of scope here).
-- Original message
>
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
> routable.
>
> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>
This ignores note 2 on the IANA definitions page, next to 192.0.0.0/24 :
> [2]
>
> Not useable unless by virtue of a more specific reservation.
>
> Which then lists the mor
RFC 5736 was obsoleted by RFC 6890.
It says in part:
2.2.1. Information Requirements
The IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries maintain the
following information regarding each entry:
…
o Forwardable - A boolean value indicating whether a router may
forward an IP datag
No, I am not confusing those two. Actually, Im using 192.0.2.0 as well
here, for server's internal SNAT.
Okey, I checked that registry and there is nothing I care about.
It seems the choice to using 192.0.0.0/24 internally at desktop
was smart enough ;)
Thx for info.
-- Original message
Used/Refurbished Cisco ASR 900 or 1000 family, perhaps ?
Rubens
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:53 PM Tom Samplonius wrote:
>
>
> What are using for small campus border routers? So four to eight 10G ports
> with a FIB for full scale L3?
>
>
> Tom
>
>
[10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
[RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in
[IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry].
Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon.
Its a nice tiny subnet for special purpose
+1 on the CCR2216 routers, rock-solid stuff...
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
From: NANOG on behalf of Tony
Wicks
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 5:08 AM
To: 'Tom Samplonius'
Cc: 'NANOG'
Subject: RE: Small Internet border router options?
Juniper MX204, Nokia SR1/SR1
13 matches
Mail list logo
