unsubscribe On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 00:55, <nanog-request@nanog.org> wrote:

Send NANOG mailing list submissions to        nanog@nanog.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit        https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to        nanog-request@nanog.org

You can reach the person managing the list at        nanog-owner@nanog.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Re: IPv6 end user addressing (Joel Jaeggli)   2. Re: AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue? (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)   3. Re: AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue? (Joel Jaeggli)   4. Re: US internet providers hijacking users' search queries      (Joe Provo)   5. Re: IPv6 end user addressing (Jeff Wheeler)   6. RE: IPv6 end user addressing (Jonathon Exley)   7. Re: IPv6 end user addressing (Joel Jaeggli)   8. Re: IPv6 end user addressing (David Conrad)   9. Re: STRIKE: VZN (Matthew S. Crocker)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 08:26:09 -0700 From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> To: Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing Message-ID: <404AD93A-F84C-4ABD-8954-216109F22C60@bogus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote:

...

In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end users.  /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being slightly preferred.

I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying to address this problem.  It provides 16 /64 subnetworks, which seems like an adequate amount for an end user.

Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6?

When you have a device that delegates, e.g. a cpe taking it's assigned prefix, and delegating a fraction of it to a downstream device, you need enough bits that you can make them out, possibly more than once. if you want that to happen automatically you want enough bits that user-intervention is never (for small values of never) required in to subnet when connecting devices together...

the homenet wg is exploring how devices in the home might address the issue of topology discovery in conjunction with delegation, which realistically home networks are going to have to do...

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

------------------------------

Message: 2 Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:39:31 -0400 From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu To: Graham Wooden <graham@g-rock.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: AT&T -> Qwest ... Localpref issue? Message-ID: <121127.1312731571@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:53:05 CDT, Graham Wooden said:

...

I should also note that Centurylink has been less than cooperative on even thinking about changing my routes to a pref of 70 on our behalf (they don't accept communities). I think time to get the account rep involved ...

"they don't accept communities"??!? Just... wow. ;)

(That's if they flat out don't support it - there's a separate ring of Hell reserved for the ones who do support it but forget to document the part about singing the Zimbabwe national anthem backwards while standing on your head...)