> I'm looking at building a large network with Ipv6 in the Los
> Angeles metro area, to serve a number of small businesses via
> a large scale wireless network. Essentially a large scale
> private WAN, with globally routable addresses (for a
> VoIP/IPTV roll out later) So I'm not exactly a trad
On 21 Aug 2008, at 09:09, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 20 aug 2008, at 21:33, Crist Clark wrote:
No, that's my point. On a true point-to-point link, there is
only one other address on the link. That's what point-to-point
means.
For example, on the IPv4 ends gif(4) tunnel in my previous m
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
This article reminded me that I really needed to stop relying on a
tunnel over my backup DSL line for IPv6 and spend the time to get my
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
Well, on reading it, it's more an "IPv6: It's great -- ask for
it by name!" piece.
This article reminded me that I really needed to stop relying on a
tunnel over
A very old one:)
http://atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg00163.html
Miya
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Stickland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:32 PM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to b
Randy Bush wrote:
and consider matsuzaki-san's dos vulnerability on a /64 p2p link. the
prudent operational advice today is to use a /127.
randy
Can you provide some more information on this vulnerability? My
google-fu appears to be weak.
Sam
On 20 aug 2008, at 21:33, Crist Clark wrote:
No, that's my point. On a true point-to-point link, there is
only one other address on the link. That's what point-to-point
means.
For example, on the IPv4 ends gif(4) tunnel in my previous message,
gif0: flags=8051 metric 0 mtu 1280
tun
>>> On 8/20/2008 at 11:57 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 20 aug 2008, at 20:34, Crist Clark wrote:
>
>> On a "true" P-to-P link, there is no netmask, no? A netmask is a
>> concept that applies to broadcast media, like Ethernet. Even if
>> you only have two hosts on an Eth
On 20 aug 2008, at 20:34, Crist Clark wrote:
On a "true" P-to-P link, there is no netmask, no? A netmask is a
concept that applies to broadcast media, like Ethernet. Even if
you only have two hosts on an Ethernet link, it's not really
P-to-P in the strict sense.
An interface needs a prefix len
>>> On 8/20/2008 at 1:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 20 aug 2008, at 3:31, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at
>> apops:
>
>> http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
>
> He (she?) says pack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next
week at apops:
To summarize, using /64 on a link opens the door to a DOS
problem that we need to pressure the vendors to fix.
How is this not an obvious 'duh' kind of situation that just depends on
doing on
> matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next
> week at apops:
To summarize, using /64 on a link opens the door to a DOS
problem that we need to pressure the vendors to fix.
Obviously, this matters more to people who are running
full-blown production IPv6 networks right now tha
On 20 aug 2008, at 3:31, Randy Bush wrote:
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at
apops:
http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
He (she?) says packets will ping-pong across the link if they are
addressed to an address on the p2p subnet th
On 19 aug 2008, at 22:29, Kevin Loch wrote:
I thought there was an issue with duplicate address detection with /
127
(RFC3627)?
Don't know about that, but the all-zeroes address is supposed to be
the all-routers anycast address. Cisco doesn't implement this, so /127
works on those, but th
> I don't operate an ISP network (not anymore, anyway...). My
> customers are departments within my organization, so a /64
> per department/VLAN is more sane/reasonable for my environment.
Some time ago there was a discussion on IPv6 addressing plans
spread out over a couple of days. I incorpor
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next week at apops:
http://www.attn.jp/presentation/apnic26-maz-ipv6-p2p.pdf
randy
What I was told is that, yes, the packet get routed through the ASIC, but it
has to go there twice... Hence reducing the pps by a factor of 2 compare to
IPv4. Some vendors had shortcuts that, if the prefix len was < 64, only one
pass was necessary.
Caveat, this may not be true for all vendors or a
Randy Bush wrote:
In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
the prefix length is > 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
some of us remember when we thought similarly f
> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:30:38 -0400
> From: Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 8/19/08 1:50 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
> >> the prefix length is > 64 bits, so even though it is a to
On 8/19/08 1:50 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
>> the prefix length is > 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
>> it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loo
>-Original Message-
>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> >
> > I don't operate an ISP network (not anymore, anyway...). My customers
> > are departments within my organization, so a /64 per department/VLAN
> > is more sane/reasonable for my environment.
>
> Uh, the lower 64 bits of
> In practice, many routers require the packet to go twice in the hardware if
> the prefix length is > 64 bits, so even though it is a total waste of space,
> it is not stupid to use /64 for point-to-point links and even for loopbacks!
some of us remember when we thought similarly for /24s for p2p
On 8/19/08 1:36 PM, "Nathan Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 64 bits is not a magical boundary.
>
> 112 bits is widely recommended for linknets, for example.
>
> 64 bits is common, because of EUI-64 and friends. That's it.
> There is nothing, anywhere, that says that the first 64 bits is fo
Michael Thomas wrote:
> Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
>>>
>>> Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
>>> customers who can be given a /56 if you w
On 20/08/2008, at 5:25 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if yo
> Uh, the lower 64 bits of an IP6 address aren't used for routing
they are. the /64 boundary is not in harwhere
randy
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes. If
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes. If ARIN will give you a /48 f
> I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6
> space.
Why so little? Normally customers get a /48 except for residential
customers who can be given a /56 if you want to keep track of
different block sizes. If ARIN will give you a /48 for every
customer, then why be miserly with a
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> >operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they
> >route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if
> >its a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are
> >
>-Original Message-
>From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:29 PM
>To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Ilji
On 18 aug 2008, at 23:28, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space. My
earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of
mainly
point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses.
In that case, provisionin
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like
wasting addresses :)
That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
For instance, hosting business
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, TJ wrote:
other potential headaches (reserved address to watch out for, requiring
another route to get to a client's network, etc). That is why the official
answer is to always use /64s, even on PtP links. This is one area where the
Depends on who you consider 'official'
On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I
like wasting addresses :)
That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers
generally have
>-Original Message-
>From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:18 PM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they
route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if its
a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are just
implementing it as IPv4 with a lo
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Deepak Jain wrote:
operational content: Is anyone significantly redesigning the way they
route/etc to take advantage of any hooks that IPv6 provides-for (even if its
a proprietary implementation)? As far as I can tell, most people are just
implementing it as IPv4 with a lo
>-Original Message-
>From: Deepak Jain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:19 PM
>To: james
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>
>
>
>james wrote:
>> http://arstechni
james wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
Well, on reading it, it's more an "IPv6: It's great -- ask
for it by name!" piece.
IPv6 gives me brain ache. I hear I'm not alone in that. I'd
v6 tomorrow if I didn't hav
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
>
> Well, on reading it, it's more an "IPv6: It's great -- ask
> for it by name!" piece.
IPv6 gives me brain ache. I hear I'm not alone in that. I'd
v6 tomorrow if I didn't have to think
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-were-running-out-of-ipv4-addresses-time-for-ipv6-really.html
Well, on reading it, it's more an "IPv6: It's great -- ask for
it by name!" piece.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Design
43 matches
Mail list logo
