Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

I'm having trouble finding authoritative sources on the best common practice (if there even is one) for the choice of address for an IPv6 default gateway in a production server environment (not desktops). For example in IPv4 it is common to chose the first or last address in the subnet (.1 or .254

RE: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

I've had good luck in a corporate environment using fe80::1 on Cisco 6500/7600 with newer IOS. However, some software routers still won't let you use a link-local as a VIP (at least in HSRP). I'm upgrading one of our 7200 tonight running 15.1(4)M1 to M3, hopefully that will fix it (we are upgrad

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

In a message written on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:41:36PM +0100, Daniel STICKNEY wrote: > I've seen some documentation using ::1 with either a global > prefix or link-local (fe80::1). Anyone use either of these in production > and have negative or positive feedback? fe80::1 is seductive because it >

Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

On 25/01/12 02:50, Matt Craig wrote: > Actually something as an alternative to both I am researching is the > Brocade MLX series. They have different, more efficient, and refreshing > architecture; and phenomenal cost (half the cost of ASR1000/MX or > less). Gonna do a trial shortly to see if it

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

Hi Daniel, On Jan 25, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Daniel STICKNEY wrote: > I'm having trouble finding authoritative sources on the best common > practice (if there even is one) for the choice of address for an IPv6 > default gateway in a production server environment (not desktops). For > example in IPv4 it

Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

On 25/01/2012 15:17, Julien Goodwin wrote: > 2. Backspace doesn't work. Seriously (ok Ctrl-h works, and you can patch > your terminal emulator for it, but it's the only hardware I've used in > the last 15 years like that) I ended up remapping backspace to too. Yeah, seriously, this is totally bi

using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

Is anyone using ULA (RFC 4193) address space for v6 infrastructure that does not need to be exposed to the outside world? I understand the concept of having fc00::/8 being doled out by the RIRs never went anywhere, and using space out of fd00::/8 can be a bit of a crap-shoot because of the lik

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 25, 2012 7:52 AM, "Justin M. Streiner" wrote: > > Is anyone using ULA (RFC 4193) address space for v6 infrastructure that does not need to be exposed to the outside world? I understand the concept of having fc00::/8 being doled out by the RIRs never went anywhere, and using space out of fd

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Justin M. Streiner wrote: Is anyone using ULA (RFC 4193) address space for v6 infrastructure that does not need to be exposed to the outside world? I understand the concept of having fc00::/8 being doled out by the RIRs never went anywhere, and using space out of fd00::/8

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > Is anyone using ULA (RFC 4193) address space for v6 infrastructure that does > not need to be exposed to the outside world? I understand the concept of > having fc00::/8 being doled out by the RIRs never went anywhere, and using > space

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On 25/01/2012 16:15, Dale W. Carder wrote: > I believe there is no need to replicate the headaches of rfc1918 in the > next address-family eternity. I wish you luck selling this notion to enterprise network people, most of who appear to believe that rfc1918 address space is a feature, not a bug.

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

We've used RFC1918 space for years (without NAT) for non-routed device management (switches, printers, IP phones, etc). The same idea applies to ULA. Just another tool in the box. The idea behind the random bits was to avoid conflicts should organizations making use of ULA merge. Locally manage

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On 1/25/12 10:28 AM, "Nick Hilliard" wrote: >I wish you luck selling this notion to enterprise network people, most of >who appear to believe that rfc1918 address space is a feature, not a bug. Until they've gone through an M&A where they had to connect multiple sites using overlapping RFC1918 s

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > I don't think the industry has really found a best practice to > document yet.  There are people trying different ideas.  We find > the following convention allows us to keep things organized: > > ::1                  - Default gateway > ::

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Ray Soucy wrote: We've used RFC1918 space for years (without NAT) for non-routed device management (switches, printers, IP phones, etc). And we've done the same. The idea behind the random bits was to avoid conflicts should organizations making use of ULA merge. I'm al

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Dale W. Carder wrote: We have one customer in particular with a substantial non-publicly reachable v6 deployment with globally assigned addresses. I believe there is no need to replicate the headaches of rfc1918 in the next address-family eternity. The one big issue I cou

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > So it stands a good chance of turning into the wild west ;) Isn't this what's made the Internet great? ;-) -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System

"Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?)

On 2012-01-25 18:55 , Justin M. Streiner wrote: [..] >> Locally managed means locally manage, though. The RFC is more of >> a suggestion than a requirement at that point. > > Right, though it's a shame that the registry-assigned ULA concept didn't > take off. What everybody calls "Registered ULA

Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2012-01-25 18:55 , Justin M. Streiner wrote: > [..] >>> Locally managed means locally manage, though.  The RFC is more of >>> a suggestion than a requirement at that point. >> >> Right, though it's a shame that the registry-assigned ULA co

RE: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

> > Sorry I can't let a line like that slide. > > I used to use ServerIron's in my last job, and while generally > wonderful they had two big issues that also occur on other Foundry kit > like the MLX. > > 1. Multiple firmware files that must be upgraded in sync. While getting > more common (I'v

LX sfp minimum range

we are moving a router between 2 data centers and we only have LX sfp's for connection, is there any issue using LX sfp's in a short range deployment ?

Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

On 25/01/12 18:57, George Bonser wrote: I've noticed that though I think that is only on the hardware console port. Most of the work I do is via the management port. If I'm on the console serial port, then I am working manually and just deal with the ^H thing. I don't think that issue by it

Re: LX sfp minimum range

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:26 PM, jon Heise wrote: > we are moving a router between 2 data centers and we only have LX sfp's for > connection, is there any issue using LX sfp's in a short range deployment ? A Cisco 1000BASE-LX optic has the following spec: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collate

Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

On 1/25/2012 10:50 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 25/01/2012 15:17, Julien Goodwin wrote: >> 2. Backspace doesn't work. Seriously (ok Ctrl-h works, and you can patch >> your terminal emulator for it, but it's the only hardware I've used in >> the last 15 years like that) > > I ended up remapping ba

Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

On 1/25/2012 1:57 PM, George Bonser wrote: >> 2. Backspace doesn't work. Seriously (ok Ctrl-h works, and you can >> patch your terminal emulator for it, but it's the only hardware I've >> used in the last 15 years like that) > > I've noticed that though I think that is only on the hardware consol

Equinix Miami 1 condemnation

Last week, we saw some traffic about the Lightfiber problems because EqM1 is apparently in a building that's been condemned by the city or county of Miami. That struck me curious, so I wanted to look into it further. Amazingly, there doesn't seem to be any coverage of the incident, even in techn

Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

On 1/25/2012 2:32 PM, Tom Hill wrote: > On 25/01/12 18:57, George Bonser wrote: >> I've noticed that though I think that is only on the hardware console port. >> Most of the work I do is via the management port. If I'm on the console >> serial port, then I am working manually and just deal with

Re: juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

On 25/01/12 20:14, Vinny Abello wrote: On 1/25/2012 2:32 PM, Tom Hill wrote: Annoyingly the Dell 5400 series switches do it on their console ports, too. Thankfully they don't once you're in via SSH. But no-one cares about those! So do the 55xx's, unfortunately. I'm not sure about the other Po

Re: Equinix Miami 1 condemnation

On 1/25/2012 15:11, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Amazingly, there doesn't seem to be any coverage of the incident, even in > technical circles. Does anyone know anything they're permitted to tell > about how a building which contained a datacenter managed to get itself > condemned? I've been in a few D

[NANOG-announce] Lightning talks open for NANOG 54

Submit yours now at https://pc.nanog.org/ See you in San Diego! Greg NANOG Program Committee ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Equinix Miami 1 condemnation

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Jay Ashworth wrote: Last week, we saw some traffic about the Lightfiber problems because EqM1 is apparently in a building that's been condemned by the city or county of Miami. If I were to toss out purely random semieducated guess - a lot of south florida datacenter bui

Re: Equinix Miami 1 condemnation

> >. o O ( and I don't know where equinix's building was in south florida, >either. but I know they never showed up on our radar when we were >hunting >for space with dark fiber back to the NAP to feed our southern customers >their dose of WCQ...) > >...david This was the Metro Mall facility, op

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

In message , "Justin M . Streiner" writes: > Is anyone using ULA (RFC 4193) address space for v6 infrastructure that > does not need to be exposed to the outside world? I understand the > concept of having fc00::/8 being doled out by the RIRs never went > anywhere, and using space out of fd00:

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

On Jan 25, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Daniel STICKNEY wrote: > I'm having trouble finding authoritative sources on the best common > practice (if there even is one) for the choice of address for an IPv6 > default gateway in a production server environment (not desktops). For > example in IPv4 it is common

Re: Polling Bandwidth as an Aggregate

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 08:15:45AM -0500, Drew Weaver wrote: > RTG uses MySQL for it's backend, so you can basically setup queries however > you like and you can use RTGPOLL to graph multiple interfaces as well. > > It's a super good tool and I think there is a group working on RTG2 at > googlec

Re: AT&T and IPv6 Launch

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 06:52:05PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: > So i have been privately referred to att.com/ipv6 where you can find > supporting CPE devices. > > It sounds like if you have equipment supporting ipv6 it may just appear one > day "soon". > > Jared Mauch That's slightly depressi

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:06 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:41:36PM +0100, Daniel > STICKNEY wrote: >> I've seen some documentation using ::1 with either a global >> prefix or link-local (fe80::1). Anyone use either of these in production >> and have negati

Interesting Articles regarding more colocation space in the DC area

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/after-dramatic-growth-ashburn-expects-even-more-data-centers/2011/06/09/gIQAZduLjJ_story.html http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2012/01/18/the-coming-colo-crunch/

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 48, Issue 89

On 25/01/2012, at 20:51, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:11:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Jay Ashworth > To: NANOG > Subject: Equinix Miami 1 condemnation > Message-ID: > <22786388.6606.1327522302701.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com> > Content-Type: text

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

On Jan 25, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >> I don't think the industry has really found a best practice to >> document yet. There are people trying different ideas. We find >> the following convention allows us to keep things orga

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 25, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Dale W. Carder wrote: > >> We have one customer in particular with a substantial non-publicly >> reachable v6 deployment with globally assigned addresses. I believe >> there is no need to replicate the headaches of r

mysql.org down?

Hi, from my location / austria, mysql.org seems to be down: traceroute to 213.136.52.82 (213.136.52.82), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 7 at-vie-xion-pe01-vl-2061.upc.at (84.116.229.21) 39.009 ms 38.957 ms 39.001 ms 8 at-vie01a-rd1-vl-2050.aorta.net (84.116.228.193) 36.824 ms 35.930 ms

Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?)

On 2012-01-25 19:51 , William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> On 2012-01-25 18:55 , Justin M. Streiner wrote: >> [..] Locally managed means locally manage, though. The RFC is more of a suggestion than a requirement at that point. >>> >>> Right, t

Re: mysql.org down?

On 26/01/2012, at 10:51 AM, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > Hi, > > from my location / austria, mysql.org seems to be down: http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/mysql.org "It's not just you! http://mysql.org looks down from here." smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: mysql.org down?

On 25 January 2012 23:51, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > Hi, > > from my location / austria, mysql.org seems to be down: > traceroute to 213.136.52.82 (213.136.52.82), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 7 > at-vie-xion-pe01-vl-2061.upc.**at(84.116.229.21) > 39

Re: mysql.org down?

On Jan 25, 2012, at 6:51 PM, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > Hi, > > from my location / austria, mysql.org seems to be down: > traceroute to 213.136.52.82 (213.136.52.82), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 7 at-vie-xion-pe01-vl-2061.upc.at (84.116.229.21) 39.009 ms 38.957 ms > 39.001 ms > 8 at-vie

Re: AT&T and IPv6 Launch

Far more likely that they have some specific DHCPv6 or other feature requirement that may or may not be present in all IPv6 CPE and they won't promise that other CPE will work and don't want to have to maintain a laundry list and support customers that don't understand. Owen On Jan 25, 2012, a

Akamai/Integra issue?

This morning we began having issues at one of our sites. Eventually the systems teams tracked it down to some Akamai hosted content. I did some debugs and found that traffic transiting Integra is getting back RST packets for anything at *.akamaiedge.net. I rerouted the known bad hosts through

Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2012-01-25 19:51 , William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> What everybody calls "Registered ULA" or ULA-C(entral) is what the RIRs >>> already provide. Also entities that have such a strict requi

Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?)

On 2012-01-26 02:21 , William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> On 2012-01-25 19:51 , William Herrin wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: What everybody calls "Registered ULA" or ULA-C(entral) is what the RIRs already pr

Re: Akamai/Integra issue?

May be the attack on Facebook put Akamai into DEFCON 1 ? http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/anonymous_claims_responsibility_for_facebook_outag.php Rubens On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Magill wrote: > This morning we began having issues at one of our sites.  Eventually the > syste

Re: AT&T and IPv6 Launch

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brandon Ewing wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 06:52:05PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: >> So i have been privately referred to att.com/ipv6 where you can find >> supporting CPE devices. >> >> It sounds like if you have equipment supporting ipv6 it may just appear one

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

In a message written on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:22:37PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:06 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > ::<10240-20480>- DHCP Pool > > > > I'll note that 10240-20480 are not valid IPv6 suffixes and that you > would need to represent that as ::<2800-5000>

Re: "Registered ULA" (Was: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2012-01-26 02:21 , William Herrin wrote: >> Should their packets ever leak on to the public >> Internet, the ULA users want them to fail. > > If one does not want packets to get to the Internet then don't connect > it to the Internet. Jer

Re: LX sfp minimum range

Theoretically speaking Yes there should be an issue while using the LX SFP for short range because it may damage the receiver part. But we've been using it for quite a long time within datacenter for rack to rack switch connectivity without harming the SFP or the performance. Regards, Aftab A. Si

Re: LX sfp minimum range

I can confirm using LX SFP's for under 100' runs with no problems. Except for the one site that ordered Multi-Mode fiber... Andrew On 1/26/2012 12:27 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: Theoretically speaking Yes there should be an issue while using the LX SFP for short range because it may damage the