Re: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Kody Vicknair <kvicknair () reservetele com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I’ve been doing some reading in preparation of IPv6 deployment and figuring out how we will break up our /32. I think 
> I’m on the right track in thinking that each customer will be allocated a /48 to do whatever they wish with it.

Yes, please. If it turns out a /32 isn’t enough space to do this, then a /32 is too small for your network and you 
should trade it for a larger block.

> I’ve read recent BCOP drafts that have been approved by the IETF:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554
> It looks like the smallest subnet that should ever be assigned is a /64 on a particular link.
>
>
> Some questions that come to mind with IPv6:
>
> In regards to Point to point links my thinking is this:
> Assign a unique /64 to each point to point link with these addresses being Globally routable. This seems to be what 
> our IX providers do when assigning us an IPv6 address. Am I correct in this train of thought? Why/Why not?

Yes and no. An IX is usually _NOT_ a point to point, but a layer 2 fabric much like a LAN except that it connects a 
bunch of different ASNs.

Still assigning a /64 to point to points makes a lot of sense, even if you use them as /127s on the link.

> In regards to core loopback addressing my initial thoughts are as follows:
> Assign a single /64 encompassing all /128’s planned for loopback addressing schemes. Should I be using Unique Local 
> addressing for loopbacks instead of going with a Globally routeable addressing scheme? Should each interface IP 
> configuration have a /64 or a /128?

I prefer GUA. These might show up in traceroutes.

Each LO interface should have a /128. There’s no point (in most situations) in giving anything more).

> Also when talking about CPE mgmt addresses what do you think is a practical way of going about assigning “Private” 
> addressing schemes for cpe management purposes.

That’s way too open ended to provide useful advice. It really depends on your particular situation, topology, political 
limitations, and more.

> I’m sure some of these questions will be answered when I dive deeper into how OSPFv6 works as well as BGP in regards 
> to IPv6.

99.9% they work just like in IPv4.

> Are any of you currently running IPv6 and wished you had done something differently during the planning phase that 
> may have prevented headaches down the road?

Sounds like you’re generally on the right track. You may want to look in the archives for the NANOG on the Road in Las 
Vegas. I gave an Address Planning talk there and the slides should be online. If you’re anywhere near Cambridge, MA 
Thursday, I’ll be doing it again there.

Owen

> Kody Vicknair
> Network Engineer
>
>
>        [cid:imagebf3343.JPG@c9d2fbd2.4db10e0d] <http://www.rtconline.com>
>
> Tel:    985.536.1214
> Fax:    985.536.0300
> Email:  kvicknair () reservetele com
> Web:    www.rtconline.com
>
>        Reserve Telecommunications
> 100 RTC Dr
> Reserve, LA 70084
>
>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer:
> The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is 
> addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
> copied. Please notify Kody Vicknair immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this 
> e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be 
> intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Kody Vicknair therefore does 
> not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
> transmission.