Makes sense. However the PTP addresses need to be internally visible from an NMS perspective in our network. -C -----Original Message----- From: James [mailto:james@towardex.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 12:13 PM To: Cody Lerum Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Planning On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:24:22AM -0600, Cody Lerum wrote:

Currently we are in the process of planning our IPv6 addressing schema

for our network. We are a service provider with around 20 core routers, and several hundred enterprise customers. These customers currently connect back to our core via a separate VLANs or channelized

DS1/DS3/OC-X type interfaces. Thus currently lots of /30 IPv4 blocks.

Our address allocation is 2001:1940::/32

Here is our current plan, but we are looking for suggestions from people who have been down this road before. The plan is to break out a

/48 for our organization. Then break out the first /64 for loopbacks, and the next /64 for point-to-point connections. The PTP /64 then breaks out further into 1 /80 for core links, and 1 /80 for each of our distribution sites. Within these /80's are individual /112's for PTP links. What this will allow us to do is aggregate each sites PTP connections into /80's within our IGP.

From there, we also have a /48 allocated per each POP for transfer networks at that location for peering via pni and customer hand-offs. Each xfer net is broken off as /64 out of that /48. We currently do not

The way we do it currently are as follows: Reserve a /48 for backbone pointopoints (eg. 2001:4830:ff::/48) in US, fe::/48 in EU. Reserve a /48 for loopbacks, and use /128s for each loopback out of that. As for point to point links, we currently use simple /64 subnets for each point to point (i.e. 2001:4830:ff:1500::/64, etc where ::1 and ::2 are routers on either side of the circuit). perform any PTP link aggregation in our IGP, we simply ensure only passive-interfaces are announced to IGP, thus PTP links are not even present in the IGP table (only loopbacks and xfer nets/bgp next-hops are). It is not perfect but works well currently and scales just fine for us. <shameless plug> You may also find the ipv6-ops list helpful for v6 rollout discussions: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops </shameless plug> James -- James Jun Infrastructure and Technology Services TowardEX Technologies Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867 james@towardex.com | www.towardex.com