December 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Creating demand for IPv6, and saving the planet
by Daniel Senie 24 Jun '08

24 Jun '08

A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought about this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality. What occurred to me is there is a satellite sitting in storage that would provide such content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triana_(satellite) Al Gore pushed for this satellite, Triana, to provide those on earth with a view of the planet among its scientific goals. The Republicans referred to it as an "overpriced screen saver," though the effect even of just the camera component on people's lives and how they treat the planet could be considerable. By combining the launch of Triana with feeding the still images and video from servers only connected to native IPv6 bandwidth, the government would provide both a strong incentive for end users to want to move to IPv6, and a way to get the people of this planet to stop from time to time and ponder the future of the earth. Of course getting this done any time soon would require getting the present administration to reverse its bias against Triana and global warming. But it seemed to me an interesting way to advance two goals in synergy. Dan -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts(a)senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

26 54

Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
by Scott Weeks 04 Jan '08

04 Jan '08

--- nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote: From: Mark Smith <nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:08:10 -0800 "Scott Weeks" <surfer(a)mauigateway.com> wrote: > I am thinking of a /56 for everyone and a /48 on request. Out of curiosity, what in form would a request for a /48 need to be? A checkbox on the application form, or some sort of written justification? Remember that with an initial RIR allocation of a /32, you've got 65K /48s ... so they're pretty cheap to give away. --------------------------------------------------------------- I have about 100K DSL customers at this time and most all are households. 65K wouldn't cover that. At this point, I doubt that I'd require much more than just asking and making sure the person is understanding what they're asking for. Mostly, that'd be the leased line customers. scott

20 42

DreamHost Contact?
by Michael Greb 04 Jan '08

04 Jan '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've attempted to contact DreamHost NOC or Abuse departments via the numbers in whois but just get voice mail and no call back. I've got a user sending a lot of UDP traffic to 208.113.189.13 port 22. This traffic is very likely undesirable and I'd be willing to pull the plug immediately if I can get confirmation from DreamHost. Failing that I've opened an abuse ticket with the customer and given them 12 hours to respond. - -- Michael Greb Linode.com, LLC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHeFcN0Qbp4bPZvesRAncgAJ98S3v+I/+wxal0lWZn/9GRHimqUgCg1tXW 5CnD7nmJBMDy4Jht2vxkk2k= =wtUq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8 7

v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
by Scott Weeks 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

Disclaimer: I'm still very much an IPv6 wussie... :-) --------------------------------------------- But even in 2000 the policy was and still is: /128 for really a single device /64 if you know for sure that only one single subnet will ever be allocated. /48 for every other case (smart bet, should be used per default) ---------------------------------------------- I work on a network with 100K+ DSL folks and 200+ leased line customers, plus some other stuff. The leased line customers are increasing dramatically. I should plan for a /64 for every DSL customer and a /48 for every leased line customer I expect over the next 5-7 years? scott

34 105

European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
by Sean Siler 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

In a recent Slashdot article (http://slashdot.org/articles/07/12/17/1451230.shtml) discussing IPv6, someone left a comment the read, in part "One of the largest IPSs (sic) in Europe turned on IPv6 to all 8 million users this week. They've done the right thing and made it opt-in for now, their customers have to go to their control panel web page and turn it on, but almost 50,000 people did in the first 24 hours." Does anyone know which ISP the poster is talking about? Is there any truth to this at all? Any feedback appreciated. Sean Siler IPv6 Program Manager Microsoft

27 54

Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?
by Rick Astley 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

I see there is a long thread on IPv6 address assignment going, and I apologize that I did not read all of it, but I still have some unanswered questions. I believe someone posted the ARIN recommendation that carriers assign out /64's and /56's, and in a few limited cases, /48. I can understand corporations getting more than a /64 for their needs, but certainly this does not mean residential ISP subscribers, right? I can understand the need for /64's because the next 64 bits are for the client address, but there seems to be this idea that one and only one node may use a whole /64. So in the case of Joe, the residential DSL subscriber who has 50,000 PCs, TiVo's, microwaves, and nanobots that all need unique routable IP addresses, what is to stop him from assigning them unique client ID's (last 64 bits) under the same /64? We can let Joe put in some switches, and if that isn't enough he should consider upgrading from his $35/month DSL or $10/month dial up anyway. My next question is that there is this idea that there will be no NAT in the IPv6 world. Some companies have old IPv4 only software, some companies have branch offices using the same software on different networks, and some like the added security NAT provides. There are also serious privacy concerns with having a MAC address within an IP address. Aside from opening the doors to websites to share information on specific users, lack of NAT also means the information they have is more detailed in households where separate residents use different computers. I can become an IPv4 stranger to websites once a week by deleting cookies, IPv6 means they can profile exactly what I do over periods of years from work, home, starbucks, it doesn't matter. I don't see NAT going away any time soon.

11 13

Re: DreamHost Contact?
by Gregory Hicks 02 Jan '08

02 Jan '08

> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:42:21 -0500 > From: Michael Greb <mgreb(a)linode.com> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: DreamHost Contact? > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I've attempted to contact DreamHost NOC or Abuse departments via the > numbers in whois but just get voice mail and no call back. > > I've got a user sending a lot of UDP traffic to 208.113.189.13 port 22. > This traffic is very likely undesirable and I'd be willing to pull the > plug immediately if I can get confirmation from DreamHost. Failing that Port 22? Isn't that ssh? Doesn't ssh have the capability to forward X or whatever via ssh? > I've opened an abuse ticket with the customer and given them 12 hours to > respond. > > - -- > Michael Greb > Linode.com, LLC > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHeFcN0Qbp4bPZvesRAncgAJ98S3v+I/+wxal0lWZn/9GRHimqUgCg1tXW > 5CnD7nmJBMDy4Jht2vxkk2k= > =wtUq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 9B1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton

3 3

Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
by Scott Weeks 01 Jan '08

01 Jan '08

--- jeroen(a)unfix.org wrote: From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> Scott Weeks wrote: [..] > I have about 100K DSL customers at this time and most all are households. > 65K wouldn't cover that. At this point, I doubt that I'd require much > more than just asking and making sure the person is understanding what > they're asking for. Mostly, that'd be the leased line customers. Thus why didn't you request a larger prefix from ARIN then? Clearly you can justify it. Then again, if you are going to provide /56's to home users, nobody will think you are a bad person and most people will be quite happy already. In your case I would then reserve (probably topdown) /48's, for the larger sites/businesses and start allocating bottom-up for /56's to endusers. ------------------------------------------------- I haven't requested anything yet. That's why I came to you folks. To learn and then get busy on it. Thanks for your top-down and bottom-up idea. I will probably also intersperse /56s in between allocations as well; filling them in later if it ever gets to that. scott

2 1

Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
by Scott Weeks 29 Dec '07

29 Dec '07

First, thanks everyone for the discussion. I learned more from this than a LOT of other discussions on IPv6. I now have a plan and I didn't before... It looks to me that one really has to know his customer's needs to plan out the allocation of IPv6 space. That leads me to believe that a /56 is going to work for everyone on this network because, at this time, only very, very few of our largest customers might possibly have a need for more than 256 /64 subnets. In fact, almost all household DSL customers here only have one LAN and I could get away with /64s for them because they wouldn't know the difference. But in an effort to simplify the lives of the network folks here I am thinking of a /56 for everyone and a /48 on request. Now I just gotta wrap my brain around 4.7x10^21 addresses for each customer. Absolutely staggering. scott --- randy(a)psg.com wrote: From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(a)bogus.com> CC: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:19:27 +0900 >> vendors, like everyone else, will do what is in their best interests. >> as i am an operator, not a vendor, that is often not what is in my best >> interest, marketing literature aside. i believe it benefits the ops >> community to be honest when the two do not seem to coincide. > If the ops community doesn't provide enough addresses and a way to use > them then the vendors will do the same thing they did in v4. i presume you mean nat v6/v6. this would be a real mess and i don't think anyone is contending it is desirable. but this discussion is ostensibly operators trying to understand what is actually appropriate and useful for a class of customers, i believe those of the consumer, soho, and similar scale. to summarize the positions i think i have heard o one /64 subnet per device, but the proponent gave no estimate of the number of devices o /48 o /56 o /64 the latter three all assuming that the allocation would be different if the site had actual need and justification. personally, i do not see an end site needing more than 256 subnets *by default*, though i can certainly believe a small minority of them need more and would use the escape clause. so, if we, for the moment, stick to the one /64 per subnet religion, than a /56 seems sufficient for the default allocation. personally, i have a hard time thinking that any but a teensie minority, who can use the escape clause, need more than 256. hence, i just don't buy the /48 position. personally, i agree that one subnet is likely to be insufficient in a large proportion of cases. so keeping to the /64 per subnet religion, a /64 per site is insufficient for the default. still personally, i think the one /64 subnet per device is analogous to one receptacle per mains breaker, i.e. not sensible. > there are three legs to the tripod > network operator > user > equipment manufacturer > They have (or should have) a mutual interest in: > Transparent and automatic configuration of devices. as you have seen from chris's excellent post [0] on this one, one size does not fit all. this is likely another worthwhile, but separate, discussion. > The assignment of globally routable addresses to internet > connected devices i suspect that there are folk out there who equate nat with security. i suspect we both think them misguided. > The user having some control over what crosses the boundry > between their network and the operators. yup randy --- [0] - <http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04887.html>

5 8

New Years Eve
by Martin Hannigan 29 Dec '07

29 Dec '07

Ok folks, what's the plan? I think we should opt to join each others company at either Brasserie Jo's, or Blu. I can't speak for Jo's NYE, but Blu NYE has optional fireworks viewing on their deck facing the common. Should be pretty awesome. $99 bux. Significant others invited, of course, and anyone else who may be straggling on NYE. Let's do something together. It's long overdue. Marty

2 2