Hence my mention of thinking it was a "sin" to subnet on the bit boundary in
v6... again, I will do my best to never go back to bit boundary subnetting
math in my v6 deployment. Actually, you folks are giving me bad flashbacks
to my ATM H-PNNI days of pnni peer group nsap address subnetting. Oh h
In message , William Herrin writes:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > If I had 32 departments and were wanting to give them equal sized
> > allocations then I'd give them a /53 each which is 2064 subnets
> > each. It isn't that hard to do 8 delegations in the reverse
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> If I had 32 departments and were wanting to give them equal sized
> allocations then I'd give them a /53 each which is 2064 subnets
> each. It isn't that hard to do 8 delegations in the reverse tree
> for each of the 32 departments. Delega
Mark Andrews writes:
> If I had 32 departments and were wanting to give them equal sized
> allocations then I'd give them a /53 each which is 2064 subnets
> each. It isn't that hard to do 8 delegations in the reverse tree
> for each of the 32 departments. Delegation on nibble boundaries
> is fo
In message <596349cf.9000...@nsc.liu.se>, Thomas Bellman writes:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2017-07-08 23:00, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017, at 19:13, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> >> That open atmosphere was by design. It's why IPv6 uses 128-bit a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2017-07-08 23:00, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017, at 19:13, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> That open atmosphere was by design. It's why IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses,
>
> That's for hosts. When you care more about subnets, it's shortened
> Agreed with the /48 but ARIN doesn't appear to agree with our justification
> for a /36 thus far.
>
>
I am not sure how you have been communicating with ARIN, my experience with
them strongly suggest that after you put in your request, pickup the phone and
call them, speak to the analyst a
ider when it comes to IPv6 planning/design/discussions/whatever.
Bjørn
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Oliver O'Boyle
wrote:
> Thanks for the input. I don't consider us an isp, though i suppose i can
> see how that argument could me made. Hotels are both simple and
> complicated. There is a mix of our staff and equipment, guests and their
> equipment, and brands wit
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 18:59:36 +0200, "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" said:
> Now please show be a hotel room that has close to 65536 items in it
> (also tell me how much does a night in such a room cost).
> Then how many rooms may host close to 256 devices that can transmit and
> receive data ?
Well, as I
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017, at 19:13, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Radu,
>
> Are you assuming that a goal of IPv6 is to efficiently fill subsets? I
No, but I assume IPv6 is still subject to common-sense.
> among them easy mapping of MAC addresses for transition purposes and the
> security that discourages male
Hi Oliver, et al, I recall from when I attended an ARIN on the Road meeting in
Austin last year ( https://www.arin.net/ontheroad/ ), that the folks at ARIN
seemed to be open to discussing with you about getting the right size address
space into your hands for what you needed to accomplishwit
Radu,
Are you assuming that a goal of IPv6 is to efficiently fill subsets? I submit
that it is not. There are advantages to sparse address spaces, among them easy
mapping of MAC addresses for transition purposes and the security that
discourages malefactors from quickly enumerating active devic
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017, at 03:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
> consider a /48 per guest room as well as a /48 per hotel for the hotel
> itself.
I think the classfull madness of "/48 everywhere" should stop at some
point; the "every subnet is a /64" is enough already.
A /48 is 65536 *subnets*, with each subn
On 7/7/17, 1:07 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Oliver O'Boyle"
wrote:
> We're currently in the planning stage and can make
>whatever changes we need to.
I always say to just expect you’ll change your address plan three times.
Some people say, “I’ve only changed the address plan twice. . . so far.”
>
Oliver,
I’ll mostly second what Bill has said here. However, I encourage you to actually
consider a /48 per guest room as well as a /48 per hotel for the hotel itself.
Yes, this is excessive, but IPv6 was designed with these types of excesses in
mind.
We don’t yet know the scope and breadth of
Bill,
Thanks for the input. I don't consider us an isp, though i suppose i can
see how that argument could me made. Hotels are both simple and
complicated. There is a mix of our staff and equipment, guests and their
equipment, and brands with their equipment. But really it's just one
operating ent
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Oliver O'Boyle
wrote:
> We're an end-user org and qualify for a /40 assignment because we operate
> over 60 sites and some of those are/will be multihomed.
Hi Oliver,
I second Ken's notion. You're trying to be an ISP under the end-user rules.
However transient,
Thanks, Jima. I'll review the slides.
Without complicating the issue, we're trying to address a number of
challenges at the same time. There's no regional backhauling at this time.
Each site will be reachable via the internal network but will also
independently announce it's assignment to its ISP(
On 2017-07-07 11:07, Oliver O'Boyle wrote:
We would prefer to summarize at the /42 level, announced from our last-mile
providers. There are 3 primary last-mile providers so this strategy would
help significantly reduce the number of global routes being injected. If we
split regions evenly at /42
60 sites? Just ask for a /32.
/kc
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 01:07:54PM -0400, Oliver O'Boyle said:
>Hello,
>
>If anyone out there could provide some input or advice on how to best
>handle our upcoming leap into IPv6, it would be much appreciated. I want to
>make sure we're playing nicely
Hello,
If anyone out there could provide some input or advice on how to best
handle our upcoming leap into IPv6, it would be much appreciated. I want to
make sure we're playing nicely and not causing anyone any unnecessary grief
before we deploy. We're currently in the planning stage and can make
On 05.03.2016 22:19, Laurent Dumont wrote:
Hiya,
Hi,
We are currently considering deploying IPv6 for a Lan event in April. We
are assigned a /48 which we then split into smaller subnets for each
player vlan. That said, what remains to be decided is how we are going
to assign the IPv6. Basic
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Bj??rn Mork wrote:
>
> How does Windows manage to *use* three addresses? I can understand how
> the rfc7217 address and the privacy address can be use for different
> purposes, but what do they use the EUI-64 address for?
Windows doesn't use/create a
Owen DeLong writes:
>> On Mar 7, 2016, at 16:01 , Alarig Le Lay wrote:
>>
>> It’s not exactly specific to Windows, dhcpcd use a something like that
>> (my IPv6 is 2a00:5884:8316:2653:fd40:d47d:556f:c426). And at least,
>> there is a RFC related to that, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217.
>
> Y
On 8 March 2016 at 01:01, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
> It’s not exactly specific to Windows, dhcpcd use a something like that
> (my IPv6 is 2a00:5884:8316:2653:fd40:d47d:556f:c426). And at least,
> there is a RFC related to that, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217.
>
It appears that RFC 7217 does not
> On Mar 7, 2016, at 16:01 , Alarig Le Lay wrote:
>
> On Mon Mar 7 15:51:06 2016, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> To the best of my knowledge, Windows actually generates three
>> addresses…
>>
>> 1. Subnet Stable quasi-randomized address unrelated (or at least not
>> reversable to) MAC address.
>> 2. Pr
On Mon Mar 7 15:51:06 2016, Owen DeLong wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, Windows actually generates three
> addresses…
>
> 1. Subnet Stable quasi-randomized address unrelated (or at least not
> reversable to) MAC address.
> 2. Privacy address which rotates frequently (for some definition of
> On Mar 6, 2016, at 17:57 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> Den 6. mar. 2016 13.41 skrev "Karl Auer" :
>
>> Dunno about "harsh", but RFC 2464, section 4 says that the prefix must
>> be 64 bits. By (extremely strong) implication, a host must not use a
>> prefix of any other length to perform SLAAC.
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 13:46 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/Mar/16 23:19, Laurent Dumont wrote:
>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> We are currently considering deploying IPv6 for a Lan event in April.
>> We are assigned a /48 which we then split into smaller subnets for
>> each player vlan. That said, what re
On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 02:57 +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> But the most popular OS (Windows) completely ignores all of that and
> makes up an identifier not based on EUI-64. Everyone are happy
> anyway. The RFC should have let identifier selection as an
> implementation detail as the risk of col
: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Karl Auer
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 5:00 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPV6 planning
On Sat, 2016-03-05 at 16:19 -0500, Laurent Dumont wrote:
> We are currently considering deploying IPv6 for a Lan event in April.
> We are assigned
Den 6. mar. 2016 13.41 skrev "Karl Auer" :
> Dunno about "harsh", but RFC 2464, section 4 says that the prefix must
> be 64 bits. By (extremely strong) implication, a host must not use a
> prefix of any other length to perform SLAAC. I say "extremely strong"
> because the entire description of how
On Sun, 2016-03-06 at 13:53 +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Yes, SLAAC, 4862 clearly does not forbid it, and there is no
> technical reason.
Well - yes, there are some, and I think I pointed out several.
> Writing new
> draft which specifies behaviour for arbitrary size wouldn't be a
> challenge
I thi
* Saku Ytti
> Yes, SLAAC, 4862 clearly does not forbid it, and there is no
> technical reason. But as you state, 2464 does not specify other
> behaviour. Writing new draft which specifies behaviour for arbitrary
> size wouldn't be a challenge, marketing it might be.
FYI: RFC 7421 is an in-depth d
On 6 March 2016 at 03:08, Karl Auer wrote:
> To support SLAAC with prefix lengths other than 64 you would have to
> break numerous standards. RFC2464 is very clear on the matter, at least
> for Ethernet interfaces, though RFC 4862 is carefully non-committal.
Yes, SLAAC, 4862 clearly does not forb
On Sat 2016-Mar-05 23:30:10 +0100, Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
On 5 March 2016 at 22:54, wrote:
And note that there isn't any problem with a machine getting an IPv6
address via SLAAC *and* getting another one via DHCPv6 - my laptop is
doing that as I type (plus a privacy address or two as well)
On Sun, 2016-03-06 at 01:57 +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Technically speaking there is no reason not to support SLAAC on
> arbitrary size networks. I believe Cisco happily will autogenerate
> address for smaller subnets.
To support SLAAC with prefix lengths other than 64 you would have to
break numer
On 6 March 2016 at 00:59, Karl Auer wrote:
> Other thing with SLAAC is that you get 64-bit subnets and only 64-bit
> subnets. This should not be any kind of problem with a flat /48, but if
> you will have more complicated subnetting you should keep an eye on it.
Technically speaking there is no r
On Sat, 2016-03-05 at 16:19 -0500, Laurent Dumont wrote:
> We are currently considering deploying IPv6 for a Lan event in April.
> We are assigned a /48 which we then split into smaller subnets for
> each player vlan. That said, what remains to be decided is how we are
> going to assign the IPv6.
On 5 March 2016 at 22:54, wrote:
> And note that there isn't any problem with a machine getting an IPv6
> address
> via SLAAC *and* getting another one via DHCPv6 - my laptop is doing that
> as I
> type (plus a privacy address or two as well).
>
>
That is what our CPEs (from Inteno) do. Every com
On Sat, 05 Mar 2016 23:46:59 +0200, Mark Tinka said:
> If you want IPv6 DNS resolvers, DHCPv6 is a good option, which means a
> hybrid of DHCPv6 and SLAAC is reasonable.
And note that there isn't any problem with a machine getting an IPv6 address
via SLAAC *and* getting another one via DHCPv6 - m
On 5/Mar/16 23:19, Laurent Dumont wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> We are currently considering deploying IPv6 for a Lan event in April.
> We are assigned a /48 which we then split into smaller subnets for
> each player vlan. That said, what remains to be decided is how we are
> going to assign the IPv6. Basi
Hiya,
We are currently considering deploying IPv6 for a Lan event in April. We
are assigned a /48 which we then split into smaller subnets for each
player vlan. That said, what remains to be decided is how we are going
to assign the IPv6. Basically, it seems that are two ways, one SLAAC
where
44 matches
Mail list logo
