nanog mailing list archives
Re: Small IX IP Blocks
From: Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo () heliacal net>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:27:02 +0000
Mike, I think it's fine to cut it up smaller than /24, and might actually help in keeping people from routing the IX prefix globally. -Laszlo On Apr 5, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
Okay, so I decided to look at what current IXes are doing. It looks like AMS-IX, Equinix and Coresite as well as some of the smaller IXes are all using /64s for their IX fabrics. Seems to be a slam dunk then as how to handle the IPv6. We've got a /48, so a /64 per IX. For all of those advocating otherwise, do you have much experience with IXes? Multiple people talked about routing. There is no routing within an IX. I may grow, but an IX in a tier-2 American city will never scale larger than AMS-IX. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Back to v4, I went through a few pages of PeeringDB and most everyone used a /24 or larger. INEX appears to use a /25 for each of their segments. IX Australia uses mainly /24s, but two locations split a /24 into /25s. A couple of the smaller single location US IXes used /25s and /26s. It seems there's precedent for people using smaller than /24s, but it's not overly common. Cash and address space preservation. What does the community think about IXes on smaller than /24s? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brendan Halley" <brendan () halley net au> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> Cc: nanog () nanog org Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 6:10:34 PM Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks IPv4 and IPv6 subnets are different. While a single IPv4 is taken to be a single device, an IPv6 /64 is designed to be treated as an end user subnet. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177 section 3. On 05/04/2015 9:05 am, "Mike Hammett" < nanog () ics-il net > wrote: That makes sense. I do recall now reading about having that 8 bit separation between tiers of networks. However, in an IX everyone is supposed to be able to talk to everyone else. Traditionally (AFAIK), it's all been on the same subnet. At least the ones I've been involved with have been single subnets, but that's v4 too. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Valdis Kletnieks" < Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu > To: "Mike Hammett" < nanog () ics-il net > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog () nanog org > Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 5:49:37 PM Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:06:02 -0500, Mike Hammett said:I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every IX location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), even though we nqever expected anywhere near that many on a given fabric. Then okay, how do< we d o v6? We got a /48, so the thought was a /64 for each. You probably want a /56 for each so you can hand a /64 to each customner. That way, customer isolation becomes easy because it's a routing problem. If customers share a subnet, it gets a little harder....
Current thread:
- Small IX IP Blocks Mike Hammett (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Mike Hammett (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Karl Auer (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Brendan Halley (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Mike Hammett (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Laszlo Hanyecz (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Charles Gucker (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Bill Woodcock (Apr 04)
- RE: Small IX IP Blocks Paul Stewart (Apr 05)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Will Hargrave (Apr 05)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Mike Hammett (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 04)
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Mark Tinka (Apr 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Small IX IP Blocks Brandon Butterworth (Apr 05)