nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:58:36 +1030
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:42:59 -0500 "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
On Jan 1, 2008 8:29 AM, Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org> wrote:On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:57:17 +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com> 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 iStatic 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"
Current thread:
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jan 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jan 01)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Jan 01)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Christopher Morrow (Jan 01)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers sthaug (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Abley (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Donald Stahl (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Donald Stahl (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Vinny Abello (Jan 02)
- RE: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Azinger, Marla (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Jan 01)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Christopher Morrow (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Abley (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Deepak Jain (Jan 02)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Simon Lyall (Jan 02)