North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI

  • From: Daniel Senie
  • Date: Sun Nov 28 00:56:50 2004

At 12:25 PM 11/27/2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

On 27-nov-04, at 17:43, Paul Vixie wrote:

those of us who prefer static assignment + dhcp6 over EUI64 find a /64 to
be an obscene waste of address space on a per-lan (or per-vlan) basis, but
sadly there are already some cool wireless gadgets whose idea of ipv6 does
not include either static or dhcp6 addressing, so there's some tension.

my house has four vlans (core, family, guest colo, and wireless) -- so in
the cisco home networking model i'd need a /62 for fewer than 50 hosts?
While IPv6 is still IP, it's not just IPv4 with bigger addresses. We have 128 bits, so we should make good use of them. One way to do this is to make all subnets and 99% of end-user assignements the same size. Yes, this wastes bits, but the bits are there anyway so not wasting them really doesn't buy you anything at this point. The advantage of having a fixed /64 per subnet is that one size fits all: there is no need to worry about the subnet size when designing the network, whatever happens, all hosts that you'll ever want to put in this subnet will fit in it. Always having a /48 has a similar benefit: if you ever need to renumber, you only need to do a search and replace on the top 48 bits, the internal addressing structure can remain the same.

In a parallel universe IPv6 could have 64 bit addresses, saving 16 bytes of overhead per packet (so the additional overhead re IPv4 would only be 4 bytes rather than 20), but here in the universe we're all most familiar with, this ship has sailed a long time ago.

i life fred's reasoning.  companies with size and qualifications like
cisco's should qualify for an ASN and for PI space.  all the world's not
a home-DSL or home-cable or isp-colo network.  routing shouldn't always
follow addressing.  we'll need to discover a workable equilibrium unless
we want to encourage NAT in IPv6 the same way we (passively) encouraged it
in IPv4.
All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for PI space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about anyone "should qualify", but ONLY if there is some form of aggregation possible. PI in IPv6 without aggregation would be a bigger mistake than all other IPv6 mistakes so far.
First we built routers for IPv4 and hoped they'd have enough memory and performance to handle the future.

When it looked like routers weren't going to scale, we pushed MPLS on the assumption that we had to use higher performance "switches" in the core, and that edge systems would need to pick the routes so that core systems didn't have to worry about routing packets. After all, there wasn't going to be any way for core routers to handle wire speed forwarding. Well, a bunch of companies proved that wrong.

Routing table growth size has been another doomsday statement. There'd be no way to build equipment with enough memory. Or the memory would cost too much. Or the lookups would be too slow.

Time and again the "end of world" predictions have been proven false. Memory prices in the mid 1990's were in the $35/MB range, and memory sizing was a serious concern. Today's memory prices and CPU power far exceed what we had to work with then.

I have to agree with Fred. Anyone who today qualifies for an AS number will need to be allowed a block in IPv6 space if we ever hope to have v6 survive.