Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

ISP customer assignments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

bjohnson at drtel

Oct 5, 2009, 8:27 AM

Post #1 of 160 (1161 views)
Permalink

ISP customer assignments

>From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is for
assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it is
currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?

Thank you.

- Brian

sethm at rollernet

Oct 5, 2009, 8:38 AM

Post #2 of 160 (1102 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

Brian Johnson wrote:
>>From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is for
> assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it is
> currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
>

The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
subnet, /56 if they need more than one.

~Seth

bjohnson at drtel

Oct 5, 2009, 9:08 AM

Post #3 of 160 (1101 views)
Permalink

RE: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would be given 2^64 addresses?

I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4 Internet^2 for a single device!

Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?

- Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:sethm [at] rollernet]
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:38 AM
> To: nanog [at] nanog
> Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
>
> Brian Johnson wrote:
> >>From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is
> for
> > assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it
> is
> > currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
> >
>
> The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
> subnet, /56 if they need more than one.
>
> ~Seth

cabo at tzi

Oct 5, 2009, 9:18 AM

Post #4 of 160 (1101 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On Oct 5, 2009, at 17:38, Seth Mattinen wrote:

> The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
> subnet, /56 if they need more than one.

Brrzt, wrong. Neither the end user nor you know the answer to that
question!

So the only sensible thing is to always give them a /56.

(Actually, the IPv6 address architecture design was to give them a /
48. Think about it: We will run out of MAC addresses before we run
out of those. But some people can't manage the cognitive dissonance
coming from an address starving IPv4 world and then "wasting" all
these 2^80 addresses. My parents, who grew up around WW2, were that
way, too, and never could unlearn their "saving" habits. So the
current "wise" thing is to allocate a /56, "wasting" only 2^72
addresses per customer. The only way back to a connected Internet.)

Gruesse, Carsten

nick at foobar

Oct 5, 2009, 9:19 AM

Post #5 of 160 (1101 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On 05/10/2009 17:08, Brian Johnson wrote:
> So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
> would be given 2^64 addresses?
>
> I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4
> Internet^2 for a single device!

No, for a single LAN.

> Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?

more-or-less. Can I suggest you read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

Think of ipv6 not as 128 bits of address space, but more as a addressing
system with a globally unique host part and 2^64 possible subnets. In this
respect it's substantially different to ipv4.

Nick

trejrco at gmail

Oct 5, 2009, 9:20 AM

Post #6 of 160 (1100 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

Yes, each and every network segment (especially multi-access ones) should be
/64s. Regardless of the types of machines, speed of link, etc. It is an
entirely different model of addressing, whose name just happens to start
with IP ...

/TJ

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson [at] drtel> wrote:

> So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
> would be given 2^64 addresses?
>
> I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That�s the IPv4 Internet^2
> for a single device!
>
> Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?
>
> - Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:sethm [at] rollernet]
> > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:38 AM
> > To: nanog [at] nanog
> > Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
> >
> > Brian Johnson wrote:
> > >>From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is
> > for
> > > assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it
> > is
> > > currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
> > >
> >
> > The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
> > subnet, /56 if they need more than one.
> >
> > ~Seth
>
>

--
/TJ

sethm at rollernet

Oct 5, 2009, 9:31 AM

Post #7 of 160 (1100 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 17:38, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
>> subnet, /56 if they need more than one.
>
> Brrzt, wrong. Neither the end user nor you know the answer to that
> question!
>
> So the only sensible thing is to always give them a /56.

I'm just relating what's common *right now*, not what I would do personally.

~Seth

herrin-nanog at dirtside

Oct 5, 2009, 9:58 AM

Post #8 of 160 (1105 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson [at] drtel> wrote:
> From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is for
> assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it is
> currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?

No. A /64 is one *subnet*. Essentially the standard, static size for
any Ethernet LAN. For a customer, the following values are more
appropriate:

/128 - connecting exactly one computer. Probably only useful for your
dynamic dialup customers. Any always-on or static-IP customer should
probably have a CIDR block.

/48 - current ARIN/IETF recommendation for a downstream customer
connecting more than one computer unless that customer is large enough
to need more than 65k LANs.

/56 - in some folks opinion, slightly more sane than assigning a 65k
subnets and bazillions of addresses to a home hobbyist with half a
dozen PC's.

/60 - the smallest amount you should allocate to a downstream customer
with more than one computer. Anything smaller will cost you extra
management overhead from not matching the nibble boundary for RDNS
delegation, handling multiple routes when the customer grows, not
matching the standard /64 subnet size and a myriad other obscure
issues.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin [at] dirtside bill [at] herrin
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

wavetossed at googlemail

Oct 5, 2009, 10:07 AM

Post #9 of 160 (1106 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

> more-or-less. Can I suggest you read:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
>
> Think of ipv6 not as 128 bits of address space, but more as a addressing
> system with a globally unique host part and 2^64 possible subnets. In this
> respect it's substantially different to ipv4.

And after reading Wikipedia, follow it up with ARIN's
http://www.getipv6.info wiki site.

--Michael Dillon

bjohnson at drtel

Oct 5, 2009, 11:10 AM

Post #10 of 160 (1111 views)
Permalink

RE: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

What would be "wrong" with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.

- Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wherrin [at] gmail [mailto:wherrin [at] gmail] On Behalf Of
William
> Herrin
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:58 AM
> To: Brian Johnson
> Cc: nanog [at] nanog
> Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson [at] drtel>
> wrote:
> > From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is
> for
> > assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it
> is
> > currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
>
> No. A /64 is one *subnet*. Essentially the standard, static size for
> any Ethernet LAN. For a customer, the following values are more
> appropriate:
>
> /128 - connecting exactly one computer. Probably only useful for your
> dynamic dialup customers. Any always-on or static-IP customer should
> probably have a CIDR block.
>
> /48 - current ARIN/IETF recommendation for a downstream customer
> connecting more than one computer unless that customer is large enough
> to need more than 65k LANs.
>
> /56 - in some folks opinion, slightly more sane than assigning a 65k
> subnets and bazillions of addresses to a home hobbyist with half a
> dozen PC's.
>
> /60 - the smallest amount you should allocate to a downstream customer
> with more than one computer. Anything smaller will cost you extra
> management overhead from not matching the nibble boundary for RDNS
> delegation, handling multiple routes when the customer grows, not
> matching the standard /64 subnet size and a myriad other obscure
> issues.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin [at] dirtside bill [at] herrin
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

cra at WPI

Oct 5, 2009, 11:13 AM

Post #11 of 160 (1101 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 01:10:15PM -0500, Brian Johnson wrote:
> What would be "wrong" with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
> local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.

IPv6 CPE's may be designed to get one subnet per physical media via
DHCPv6-PD, so for example wireless and wired may be different subnets.
Really, /56 is the way to go for residential assignments.

lists at quux

Oct 5, 2009, 11:18 AM

Post #12 of 160 (1101 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

"Brian Johnson" <bjohnson [at] drtel> writes:

> So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
> would be given 2^64 addresses?
>
> I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That�s the IPv4
> Internet^2 for a single device!

Most people will have more than one device. And there is no NAT as you
know it from IPv4 (and hopefully there never will be. I had to
troubleshoot a NAT related problem today and it wasn't fun.[1])

And I want more than one network I want to have a firewall between my
fridge and my file server.

> Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?

RFC 3177 suggest a /48.

Forget about IPv4 when assigning IPv6 Networks to customers. Think big an
take a one size fits all(most) customers approach. Assign a /48 or /56 to
your customers and they will never ask you about additional IPs
again. This make Documentation relay easy. ;-)

cheers

Jens

[1] Everybody who claims that NAT is easy should have his or her head
examined.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://www.quux.de | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink [at] guug |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

web at typo

Oct 5, 2009, 11:34 AM

Post #13 of 160 (1100 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:18:23PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
> "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson [at] drtel> writes:
>
> > So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection
> > would be given 2^64 addresses?
> >
> > I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That?s the IPv4
> > Internet^2 for a single device!
>
> Most people will have more than one device. And there is no NAT as you
> know it from IPv4 (and hopefully there never will be. I had to
> troubleshoot a NAT related problem today and it wasn't fun.[1])
>
> And I want more than one network I want to have a firewall between my
> fridge and my file server.
>
> > Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?
>
> RFC 3177 suggest a /48.
>
> Forget about IPv4 when assigning IPv6 Networks to customers. Think big an
> take a one size fits all(most) customers approach. Assign a /48 or /56 to
> your customers and they will never ask you about additional IPs
> again. This make Documentation relay easy. ;-)
>
> cheers
>
> Jens

Am I the only one that finds this problematic? I mean, the whole point
of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again
have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not saying that this puts
us anywhere in that boat (yet) but isn't saying "oh, lets just put a
/64 on every interface" pretty well ignoring the lessons of the last
20 years? Surely a /96 or even a /112 would have been just as good.

Lets think longer term... IPv4 is several decades old now and still in
use. If IPv6 lasts another 50 years before someone decides that it
needs a redo, with current practices, what will things look like?
Consider the population at that point and consider the number of
interfaces as more and more devices become IP enabled. "wireless"
devices have their own issues to content with (spectrum being perhaps
the biggest limiter) so wired devices will always be around. That
means physical interfaces and probably multiple LANs in each
residence. I can see where each device may want its own LAN and will
talk to components of itself using IP internally, perhaps even having
a valid reason for having these individual components publically
addressable.

Like I said, I'm not necessarily saying we're going to find ourselves
in that boat again but it does seem as though more thought is
required. (And yes, I fully realize the magnitude of 2^64. I also
fully realize how quickly inexhaustable resources become rationable.)

-Wayne

---
Wayne Bouchard
web [at] typo
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

jgreco at ns

Oct 5, 2009, 11:35 AM

Post #14 of 160 (1102 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

> So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would be given 2^64 addresses?
>
> I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4 Internet^2 for a single device!
>
> Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?

The fact that you could use it for a single device is irrelevant. We
have learned the problems imposed by the shortsightedness of IPv4.

You're already given 65536 ports for your IPv4 device. OMG, you do
not /really/ need that many for a single device!

This issue has been hashed over many times. Stop thinking IPv4, where
bits are in sufficiently short supply that we "feel" assignment of any
extra space is "waste." Start thinking IPv6, where bits are in such
great supply that it makes sense to think about stuff like making sure
delegations are sufficiently large that your typical ASN isn't having
to advertise a hundred prefixes of cobbled-together-over-the-years
space, that NAT can be purged from the face of the earth, etc.

... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

herrin-nanog at dirtside

Oct 5, 2009, 11:37 AM

Post #15 of 160 (1101 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson [at] drtel> wrote:
> What would be "wrong" with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
> local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.

It's a question of convenience... your customers', but more
importantly yours. Every time you have to deviate from your default,
whatever default you pick, that's an extra overhead cost you have to
bear. Absent a compelling reason not to, you should structure your
default choice so that it accommodates as many customers as possible.

There are too many good reasons why someone might want to use two
subnets with two different security policies and not enough reasons
(zero in fact) why it would help you to give them less subnets than
the 16 in a /60.

> So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band
> connection would be given 2^64 addresses?
> I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That�s the IPv4
> Internet^2 for a single device!

Some clever guy figured out that if you use 64 bits you can write
algorithms that automatically assign an interface's IP address based
on its MAC address without having to arp for it. Since the details of
IPv6 were not yet firmly fixed at that point and ram is cheap, why not
add an extra 64 bits for that very convenient improvement? This is
called "stateless autoconfiguration."

Some even more clever guy figured out that if the first clever guy's
strategy is used, it becomes a trivial matter to track someone
online... based on the last 64 bits of their IP address which will
remain static for the life of the hardware they use regardless of
where they connect to the 'net. Given this rather blatent weakness and
given that you still need DHCP to assign DNS resolvers and the like,
stateless autoconfiguration will probably end up being a waste. That's
unfortunate, but look at it this way: the important part is not how
many addresses are wasted, it's how many addresses are usable.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin [at] dirtside bill [at] herrin
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

smb at cs

Oct 5, 2009, 11:38 AM

Post #16 of 160 (1102 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:

> What would be "wrong" with using a /64 for a customer who only has a
> local network? Most home users won't understand what a subnet is.

They probably don't -- but some appliance they buy might. Maybe some
home "family-oriented" box will put the kids' machines on a separate
VLAN, to permit rate-limiting, port- and destination-filtering, time-
of-day limits, etc. In the past, I had to do similar things -- no AIM
during homework hours, no file-sharing -- to the point that I had four
subnets in my house (wireless, teen-net, workVPN, and backbone/
parents). I don't expect the average consumer to set up something
like that, but I sure wouldn't be surprised at appliances that did.

--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

jgreco at ns

Oct 5, 2009, 12:10 PM

Post #17 of 160 (1100 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

> Am I the only one that finds this problematic?

No, but most of the people who find this "problematic" haven't done
any looking into the matter.

> I mean, the whole point
> of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again
> have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not saying that this puts
> us anywhere in that boat (yet) but isn't saying "oh, lets just put a
> /64 on every interface" pretty well ignoring the lessons of the last
> 20 years? Surely a /96 or even a /112 would have been just as good.

No, it wouldn't have been. The sheer usefulness of having things like
stateless autoconfig for many trivial applications should not be
underestimated.

> Lets think longer term... IPv4 is several decades old now and still in
> use. If IPv6 lasts another 50 years before someone decides that it
> needs a redo, with current practices, what will things look like?
> Consider the population at that point and consider the number of
> interfaces as more and more devices become IP enabled. "wireless"
> devices have their own issues to content with (spectrum being perhaps
> the biggest limiter) so wired devices will always be around. That
> means physical interfaces and probably multiple LANs in each
> residence. I can see where each device may want its own LAN and will
> talk to components of itself using IP internally, perhaps even having
> a valid reason for having these individual components publically
> addressable.

Do some math, then.

A /64 handles a single network. An essentially infinite number of
devices can live within that space, though there are practical limits.
You might realistically have a network for your light switches and a
network for your A/V gear. You seem to anticipate that, so let's just
say we agree, but I'm going to make a big whopper claim and say that we
should delegate /48 to end users. This means each user could have up
to 65,536 /64's. While I can daydream about scenarios that would eat
up a significant fraction of those subnets, I have to also concede that
consolidation is probably possible.

Population today is about 7 billion. A fairly aggressive long range
report by the UN puts population in 2300 as high as maybe 40 billion,
or about six times our current population.

Let's just pretend we had the 40 billion today. To come up with 40
billion unique /48 allocations, we'd need almost 36 bits.

Of course, this assumes that you can sequentially allocate them. More
realistic scenarios suggest that you'd have several bits worth of
sparseness. Maybe 40 bits.

Okay, 40 bits is close to 48 bits.

But we're not delegating /48's to everyone (yet) and we don't have
40 billion people on the planet.

> Like I said, I'm not necessarily saying we're going to find ourselves
> in that boat again but it does seem as though more thought is
> required. (And yes, I fully realize the magnitude of 2^64. I also
> fully realize how quickly inexhaustable resources become rationable.)

People HAVE done the thought. They've thought about it and argued it
back and forth for years. This isn't a good place to continue to beat
the discolored spot where the dead horse formerly lay; there are some
discussions in the NANOG archives as it stands. It's mostly only those
who are steeped in the IPv4 thinking and who haven't done the math are
concerned about /64's.

And note that you're *free* to go allocate a /96 or a /112 to your
devices if you really want to do the manual configuration. What's
required is for you to do the thinking as to whether or not it is
worth it to paddle furiously against the current to save a resource
that is in no short supply.

... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

jfbeam at gmail

Oct 5, 2009, 1:43 PM

Post #18 of 160 (1105 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

[here we go again]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:37:49 -0400, William Herrin
<herrin-nanog [at] dirtside> wrote:
> Some clever guy figured out that ... why not
> add an extra 64 bits for that very convenient improvement? This is
> called "stateless autoconfiguration."

Except that "clever guy" was in fact an idiot blinded by idealism. Not
only did he fail to see the security implications of having a fixed
address, but he'd apparently spent his entire life under a rock, on an
island, on another planet... he completely ignored the fact that people
were using DHCP [formerly known as BOOTP] (and have been now for over a
decade) to provide machines with FAR MORE than just an address. A machine
needs more than just an address to be useful -- something IPv6 users learn
very quickly after turning off IPv4 and it's DHCP learned info.

> Some even more clever guy figured out that if the first clever guy's
> strategy is used, it becomes a trivial matter to track someone
> online... ...
> stateless autoconfiguration will probably end up being a waste.

It's ALWAYS been a waste. All these supposed "clever guys" failed to
learn from the mistakes that preceded them and have doomed us to repeat
them... ICMP router discovery (technology abandoned so long ago, I'd
forgotten about it), RARP, bootp, dhcp. SLAAC loops us back around to the
beginning. Only this time, it's inescapable: I still have to have
something on the network spewing RAs for the sole purpose of telling
everything to use DHCP instead; there's a hard "class" boundary smack in
the middle of a "classless network" because these "clever guys" were lazy
and didn't want to figure out ways to avoid address collisions. (something
modern IPv6 stacks do by default for privacy -- randomly generated
addresses have to be tested for uniqueness.)

--Ricky

tjc at ecs

Oct 5, 2009, 2:09 PM

Post #19 of 160 (1099 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:34:51AM -0700, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> Am I the only one that finds this problematic? I mean, the whole point
> of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again
> have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not saying that this puts
> us anywhere in that boat (yet) but isn't saying "oh, lets just put a
> /64 on every interface" pretty well ignoring the lessons of the last
> 20 years? Surely a /96 or even a /112 would have been just as good.

The current guidance applies only to one /3 out of eight. Different
rules could be applied to the others.

> Like I said, I'm not necessarily saying we're going to find ourselves
> in that boat again but it does seem as though more thought is
> required. (And yes, I fully realize the magnitude of 2^64. I also
> fully realize how quickly inexhaustable resources become rationable.)

As it happens, Windows boxes now generate random interface IDs (not
based on MACs), which could have easily been 32 bits with the default
subnet 96 bits long, rather than 64 bits. But we are where we are
and we do have interesting ideas like CGAs as a result.

--
Tim

dwhite at olp

Oct 5, 2009, 2:13 PM

Post #20 of 160 (1097 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On 05/10/09�16:43�-0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> [here we go again]
>
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:37:49 -0400, William Herrin
> <herrin-nanog [at] dirtside> wrote:
>> Some clever guy figured out that ... why not
>> add an extra 64 bits for that very convenient improvement? This is
>> called "stateless autoconfiguration."
>
> Except that "clever guy" was in fact an idiot blinded by idealism. Not
> only did he fail to see the security implications of having a fixed
> address, but he'd apparently spent his entire life under a rock, on an

a publicly routeable stateless auto configured address is no less
secure than a publicly routeable address assigned by DHCP. Security is, and
should be, handled by other means.

> island, on another planet... he completely ignored the fact that people
> were using DHCP [formerly known as BOOTP] (and have been now for over a
> decade) to provide machines with FAR MORE than just an address. A

That's what stateless DHCP does.

>> Some even more clever guy figured out that if the first clever guy's
>> strategy is used, it becomes a trivial matter to track someone
>> online... ...
>> stateless autoconfiguration will probably end up being a waste.
>
> It's ALWAYS been a waste. All these supposed "clever guys" failed to
> learn from the mistakes that preceded them and have doomed us to repeat
> them... ICMP router discovery (technology abandoned so long ago, I'd
> forgotten about it), RARP, bootp, dhcp. SLAAC loops us back around to
> the beginning. Only this time, it's inescapable: I still have to have
> something on the network spewing RAs for the sole purpose of telling
> everything to use DHCP instead; there's a hard "class" boundary smack in
> the middle of a "classless network" because these "clever guys" were lazy
> and didn't want to figure out ways to avoid address collisions.

I don't understand. You're saying you have overlapping class boundaries in
your network?

> (something modern IPv6 stacks do by default for privacy -- randomly
> generated addresses have to be tested for uniqueness.)

--
Dan White
BTC Broadband

owenc at hubris

Oct 5, 2009, 2:20 PM

Post #21 of 160 (1105 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:

> Whenever you declare something to be "inexhasutable" all you do is
> increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that
> there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource.

This is where I think there is a major disconnect on IPv6. The size
of the pool is just so large that people just can't wrap their heads
around it.

2^128 is enough space for every man, woman and child on the planet to
have around 4 billion /64s to themselves. Even if we assume everyone
might possibly need say 10 /64s per person that still means we are
covered until the population hits around 2,600,000,000,000,000,000.

Chris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun):
President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 - A stupidity tax
Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

dwhite at olp

Oct 5, 2009, 2:28 PM

Post #22 of 160 (1097 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

On 05/10/09�16:20�-0500, Chris Owen wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
>
>> Whenever you declare something to be "inexhasutable" all you do is
>> increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that
>> there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource.
>
> This is where I think there is a major disconnect on IPv6. The size of
> the pool is just so large that people just can't wrap their heads around
> it.

I think another disconnect is our understanding and expectations of
addressing needs with IPv6. The challenge of IPv6 address assignment is to
predict what home and enterprise networks will look like in 10, 20 or more
years.

Do we want to implement an assignment method of conservation based on what
we know and understand today, that maximizes the lifetime of IPv6? Or do we
want to use an approach that maximizes its usefulness (and the utility of
the internet) over the next 50 years?

--
Dan White
BTC Broadband

bmanning at vacation

Oct 5, 2009, 2:32 PM

Post #23 of 160 (1109 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

considered top posting to irritate a few folks, decided not to.

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:20:44PM -0500, Chris Owen wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> >Whenever you declare something to be "inexhasutable" all you do is
> >increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that
> >there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource.
>
> This is where I think there is a major disconnect on IPv6. The size
> of the pool is just so large that people just can't wrap their heads
> around it.
>
> 2^128 is enough space for every man, woman and child on the planet to
> have around 4 billion /64s to themselves. Even if we assume everyone
> might possibly need say 10 /64s per person that still means we are
> covered until the population hits around 2,600,000,000,000,000,000.
>
> Chris
>

here, you expose a hidebound bias to 20th century networking.
please remember that - with few exceptions - people network
at a very different level than machines. people don't need
IP addresses - computing nodes that want to communicate do.

Just for grins, put a unique IPv6 address in every active RFID
tag. ... and remember that there are RFID printers that can
put 18 tags on a single A4 sheet. Numbers will become disposible,
like starbucks coffee cups and MCD's bigmac containers.

--bill

dhetzel at gmail

Oct 5, 2009, 2:47 PM

Post #24 of 160 (1095 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

The estimated mass of our galaxy is around 6x10^42Kg. The mass of earth is a
little less than 6x10^24Kg.

2^128 is around 3.4x10^38.
So in a flat address space we have about one IPV6 address for every 20,000Kg
in the galaxy or for every 20 picograms in the earth...

One would hope it would last for a while :)

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:32 PM, <bmanning [at] vacation> wrote:

>
> considered top posting to irritate a few folks, decided not to.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:20:44PM -0500, Chris Owen wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
> >
> > >Whenever you declare something to be "inexhasutable" all you do is
> > >increase demand. Eventually you reach a point where you realize that
> > >there is, in fact, a limit to the inexhaustable resource.
> >
> > This is where I think there is a major disconnect on IPv6. The size
> > of the pool is just so large that people just can't wrap their heads
> > around it.
> >
> > 2^128 is enough space for every man, woman and child on the planet to
> > have around 4 billion /64s to themselves. Even if we assume everyone
> > might possibly need say 10 /64s per person that still means we are
> > covered until the population hits around 2,600,000,000,000,000,000.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> here, you expose a hidebound bias to 20th century networking.
> please remember that - with few exceptions - people network
> at a very different level than machines. people don't need
> IP addresses - computing nodes that want to communicate do.
>
> Just for grins, put a unique IPv6 address in every active RFID
> tag. ... and remember that there are RFID printers that can
> put 18 tags on a single A4 sheet. Numbers will become disposible,
> like starbucks coffee cups and MCD's bigmac containers.
>
> --bill
>
>

joelja at bogus

Oct 5, 2009, 2:49 PM

Post #25 of 160 (1099 views)
Permalink

Re: ISP customer assignments [In reply to]

Brian Johnson wrote:
> So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would be given 2^64 addresses?

No, that's a single subnet, typically they should be assigned more than
that.

> I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4 Internet^2 for a single device!
>
> Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?
>
> - Brian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:sethm [at] rollernet]
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:38 AM
>> To: nanog [at] nanog
>> Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
>>
>> Brian Johnson wrote:
>>> >From what I can tell from an ISP perspective, the design of IPv6 is
>> for
>>> assignment of a /64 to an end user. Is this correct? Is this how it
>> is
>>> currently being done? If not, where am I going wrong?
>>>
>> The most common thing I see is /64 if the end user only needs one
>> subnet, /56 if they need more than one.
>>
>> ~Seth
>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads