Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers

From: Mark Smith (no email)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2008 - 05:28:36 EST

  • Next message: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "2007 IPv4 Address Use Report"

    On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:42:59 -0500
    "Christopher Morrow" <> wrote:

    >
    > On Jan 1, 2008 8:29 AM, Mark Smith
    > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:57:17 +0100
    > > Iljitsch van Beijnum <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > On 31 dec 2007, at 1:24, Mark Smith wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Another idea would be to give each non-/48 customer the
    > > > > first /56 out of each /48.
    > > >
    > > > Right, so you combine the downsides of both approaches.
    > > >
    > > > It doesn't work when ARIN does it:
    > > >
    > >
    > > Well, ARIN aren't running the Internet route tables. If they were, I'd
    > > assume they'd force AS6453 to do the right thing and aggregate their
    > > address space.
    > >
    >
    > 11920 - cogeco who I presume (just guessing) is doing this either
    > because they have not aggregated by mistake or have to shed load and
    > load-balance). I don't think teleglobe (6453) is at fault here...

    Yeah, you're right, I missed the line wrapped AS_PATH.

    >
    > out of curiousity how is this sort of thing supposed to be done in v6?
    > (traffic engineering given the '1 prefix per ISP' standard mantra)
    >
    > >
    > > > * 24.122.32.0/20 4.68.1.166 0 0 3356 6453
    > > > 11290 i
    > >
    > > Static assignments of /56 to customers make sense to me, and that's the
    > > assumption I've made when suggesting the addressing scheme I proposed.
    > > Once you go static with /56s, you may as well make it easy for both
    > > yourself and the customer to move to a /48 that encompasses the
    > > original /56 (or configure the whole /48 for them from the outset).
    >
    > I think the assumption most folks make with DSL/cable is that
    > end-users get dynamic assignments from a local (to the PE device)
    > pool, similar to ipv4. I suppose you could do static assignments, but
    > there's a management payment there that might not fit within the ISP's
    > cost plan. I presume that something accepting PD would be smart
    > enough to let the end-hosts/lans know when their top 56 bits
    > changed... and v6 includes auto-renumbering for 'free' right? So all
    > solved?
    >
    > (yes some of that is joking... or at the very least pointing out a gotcha)
    >
    > -Chris

    -- 
            "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
             alert."
                                       - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
    

  • Next message: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "2007 IPv4 Address Use Report"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD