nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
From: Mathias Seiler <mathias.seiler () mironet ch>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:14:06 +0100
Ok let's summarize: /64: + Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part) + Probability of renumbering very low + simpler for ACLs and the like + rDNS on a bit boundary <> You can give your peers funny names, like 2001:db8::dead:beef ;) - Prone to attacks (scans, router CPU load) - "Waste" of addresses - Peer address needs to be known, impossible to guess with 2^64 addresses /126 + Only 4 addresses possible (memorable, not so error-prone at configuration-time and while debugging) + Not prone to scan-like attacks - Not on a bit boundary, so more complicated for ACLs and … - … rDNS - Perhaps need to renumber into /64 some time. - No 64 bits for hosts /127 Like /126 but there's an RFC not recommending it and an RFC (draft) which revises that non-recommendation. On 25 Jan 2010, at 10:14, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler <mathias.seiler () mironet ch> wrote:Hi In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard. I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64 - 2 addresses here it feels plain wrong. So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;) Cheers Mathias Seiler MiroNet GmbH, Strassburgerallee 86, CH-4055 Basel T +41 61 201 30 90, F +41 61 201 30 99 mathias.seiler () mironet ch www.mironet.chAs I mentioned in my lightning talk at the last NANOG, we reserved a /64 for each PtP link, but configured it as the first /126 out of the /64. That gives us the most flexibility for expanding to the full /64 later if necessary, but prevents us from being victim of the classic v6 neighbor discovery attack that you're prone to if you configure the entire /64 on the link.
I think I will go this way. Since we've got the usual /32 assignment I have plenty of /64 to "waste". If I continue assigning a /48 to every customer I can set apart a /64 for each PtP link and still have room to grow for a very long time (I'm not taking into account the assignment of IPv6 addresses to high amounts of M&Ms so far ;) ) This way the configuration and addressing plan is simple and understandable to anyone.
All someone out on the 'net needs to do is scan up through your address space on the link as quickly as possible, sending single packets at all the non-existent addresses on the link, and watch as your router CPU starts to churn keeping track of all the neighbor discovery messages, state table updates, and incomplete age-outs.
Well I could filter that in hardware with an interface ACL but a /126 seems much easier to maintain.
With the link configured as a /126, there's a very small limit to the number of neighbor discovery messages, and the amount of state table that needs to be maintained and updated for each PtP link. It seemed like a reasonable approach for us--but there's more than one way to skin this particular cat. Hope this helps!
Yes it does. Thanks! Mathias Seiler MiroNet GmbH, Strassburgerallee 86, CH-4055 Basel T +41 61 201 30 90, F +41 61 201 30 99 mathias.seiler () mironet ch www.mironet.ch
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links, (continued)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Aaron C. de Bruyn (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Joel Jaeggli (Jan 29)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Glen Turner (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Leo Bicknell (Jan 23)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Nathan Ward (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Owen DeLong (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Nathan Ward (Jan 24)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Matthew Petach (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 25)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mathias Seiler (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Matt Addison (Jan 25)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Igor Gashinsky (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Steve Bertrand (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Grzegorz Janoszka (Jan 27)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links TJ (Jan 27)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Pekka Savola (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Mark Smith (Jan 26)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Jim Burwell (Jan 27)
- RE: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Igor Gashinsky (Jan 27)
- Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links Steve Bertrand (Jan 27)