Re: Small Internet border router options?

On 5/14/24 08:23, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Used/Refurbished Cisco ASR 900 or 1000 family, perhaps ? The old Foundry/Brocade CER 4X-RT series will also do if you only need 4 ports and are cheap as all get out on the secondary market, though FIB scale is starting to become a little concerning if you

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:12 PM Mel Beckman wrote: > I never could understand the motivation behind RFC3531. Just assign /64s. Say you have a point of presence (pop) where you serve customers, allowing each a /56. You assign a /48 to the pop and route the /48 to the pop rather than routing each /

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

Hello, The minimum addressable on a LAN is a /64. So you have to provide the customer with a larger subnet. Public operators in France generally deliver a /60. The RFC gives /56, however, as customers are mobile and there is a risk of disaggregating into PAs (or rather allowing the customer

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

Understood, yes, but I should have been more clear: I'm talking about statically allocating my own internal /64s out of the /56 I've reserved for my org's own use. Is there any point in using a more complex scheme than just "next!" ? -Adam Get Outlook for Android __

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

Read about EUI-64 that is now legacy, you will understand why. Le mer. 15 mai 2024, à 08 h 49, Adam Thompson a écrit : > Understood, yes, but I should have been more clear: I'm talking about > statically allocating my own internal /64s out of the /56 I've reserved for > my org's own use. Is the

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

Hi, On 15/05/2024 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: Message: 10 Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 19:52:43 + From: Adam Thompson To: nanog Subject: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but w

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

. On 15/05/2024 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: Message: 11 Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 20:12:31 + From: Mel Beckman To: Adam Thompson Cc: nanog Subject: Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable? Message-ID:<813adb68-4f73-49cc-ab3f-9be187074...@beckman.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

> The minimum addressable on a LAN is a /64. not really randy

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:20 AM Randy Bush wrote: > > The minimum addressable on a LAN is a /64. > > not really The minimum (and maximum) subnet mask for a LAN in which -all- of IPv6's technologies work right is /64. If you don't require stateless autoconfiguration or automatic link-local addres

FCC proposes Internet Routing Security Reporting Requirements

Dear all, FYI: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-402579A1.pdf Kind regards, Job

Mailing list SPF Failure

Anyone else getting SPF failures on all messages sent to the list ? I see them all originating from 50.31.151.76 but nanog.org's SPF record doesn't list that as allowed.

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

Let us see… -mel beckman > On May 15, 2024, at 7:47 PM, Scott Q. wrote: > >  Anyone else getting SPF failures on all messages sent to the list ? > > I see them all originating from 50.31.151.76 but nanog.org's SPF record > doesn't list that as allowed. >

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

A /64 is not "enough" period. Each IPv6 /64 should be thought of as the same as an IPv4 /32. The RFC is still relevant. You are able to be allocated IPs justifying 8-bits per customer (/56) and customers should expect that /56 be the minimum delegated by their providers. The prefix delegation fo

Re: Q: is RFC3531 still applicable?

Jay, Each IPv6 /64 should be thought of as the same as an IPv4 /32? That seems a tad wasteful. A single /64 has billions of times more addresses than the entire IPv4 address space. It is enough for any conceivable subnet. There are also billions of /56 prefixes available, so no ISP customer wou

Re: Mailing list SPF Failure

"Scott Q." writes: > Anyone else getting SPF failures on all messages sent to the list > ? > > I see them all originating from 50.31.151.76 but nanog.org's SPF > record doesn't list that as allowed. I see the same. nanog.org mail is originated from 2001:1838:2001:8:0:0:0:20 or 50.31.151.76, and