Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson >> wrote: >> > Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K >> > from >> >> where does the 1M come

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread joel jaeggli
On 12/4/13, 12:58 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson >> wrote: >>> Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from >> >> where does the 1M come from? >> > > FIB table

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Brian Dickson
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson > wrote: > > Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from > > where does the 1M come from? > FIB table sizes, usually dictated by TCAM size. Think deployed hardw

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Owen DeLong
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:43 , Brian Dickson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson > wrote: > > Second of all, what would make much more sense in your scenario is > to aggregate at one or two of those levels. I'd expect

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from where does the 1M come from?

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Brian Dickson
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson > wrote: > > Second of all, what would make much more sense in your scenario is > to aggregate at one or two of those levels. I'd expect probably the POP > and the Border device levels most likely, so

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > IF deployed by operators correctly, the global routing table should be 1 > IPv6 route per ASN. > However, that is only feasible if each ASN can efficiently aggregate > forever (or 50 years at least). and if your capacity between 2 asn endpoin

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Owen DeLong
On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson wrote: > Rob Seastrom wrote: > >> "Ricky Beam" > gmail.com> >> writes: >>> >> * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom > > wrote: *>> >> * So the

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Brian Dickson
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > Brian Dickson wrote: > > > And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence > > > that every network (LAN) must be a /64. > [snip] > about how many bits to add for hosts on the lan. The fact it came out to 64 > > The point I'

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Brian Dickson wrote: > Not necessarily transit - leaf ASN ISP networks (which do IP transit for > consumers, but do not have BGP customers) would also be counted in. They do > still exist, right? that's still a transit as, right? I think your math means that there

RE: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Tony Hain
Brian Dickson wrote: > > And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence > > that every network (LAN) must be a /64. Get your history straight. The /64 was an outcome of operators deciding there was not enough room for hierarchy in the original proposal for the IPv6 address as

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Brian Dickson
Not necessarily transit - leaf ASN ISP networks (which do IP transit for consumers, but do not have BGP customers) would also be counted in. They do still exist, right? Brian On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > > >

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Brian Dickson
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Brian Dickson writes: > > > Rob Seastrom wrote: > > > >> "Ricky Beam" http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog>> > >> writes: > >> > > >> * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom >>

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > Brian Dickson writes: > >> Rob Seastrom wrote: >> >>> "Ricky Beam" >> gmail.com> >>> writes: >>> > >>> * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom >>

Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

2013-12-04 Thread Rob Seastrom
Brian Dickson writes: > Rob Seastrom wrote: > >> "Ricky Beam" > gmail.com> >> writes: >> > >> * On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom > > wrote: *>> >> * So there really is no excuse on A