RE: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
[Let's try this again without fat-fingering the Send button :-)] Seems like an obvious case for using IPv6. RFC2373 site-local addresses assign a /48, with 16 bits of subnet ID and 64 bits of host ID. The average location probably doesn't have 2**16 extranets on one DMZ; picking a random value usually yields one that nobody you're talking to is also talking to, so almost nobody needs to use NAT for this kind of thing, assuming you plan to tunnel them.
What I dont understand is the need to stay 1:1 routable. Most all of you larger ISP's could have your own private IP Space by simply running a NAT'd infrastructure. Why not do it for all your customers? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS" <billstewart@att.com> To: <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:27 PM Subject: RE: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp [Let's try this again without fat-fingering the Send button :-)] Seems like an obvious case for using IPv6. RFC2373 site-local addresses assign a /48, with 16 bits of subnet ID and 64 bits of host ID. The average location probably doesn't have 2**16 extranets on one DMZ; picking a random value usually yields one that nobody you're talking to is also talking to, so almost nobody needs to use NAT for this kind of thing, assuming you plan to tunnel them.
On Tue, 27 May 2003 05:03:31 -0700 todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
What I dont understand is the need to stay 1:1 routable. Most all of you larger ISP's could have your own private IP Space by simply running a NAT'd infrastructure. Why not do it for all your customers?
umm, because there are protocols (like IPSec) which make end-to-end assumptions that are broken by NAT? yes, IPSec can be gotten through NAT, in some very specific cases, but i have a client who is 1) on ameritech DSL (/29 space allocated) and 2) requires a specifc IPSec setup to communicate with one of their vendors, an IPSec configuration that won't pass through NAT. if Ameritech (the only viable DSL choice in their area) NATed, they'd be SOL, unable to communicate with their vendor. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On Tue, 27 May 2003, todd glassey wrote:
What I dont understand is the need to stay 1:1 routable. Most all of you larger ISP's could have your own private IP Space by simply running a NAT'd infrastructure. Why not do it for all your customers?
And what if you want to host a webserver or mailserver? Why stop there, what about with local exchanges in the PSTN, you could put all towns on their own extension based PBX and save time in having to allocate phone numbers.. Steve
Todd
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS" <billstewart@att.com> To: <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:27 PM Subject: RE: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
[Let's try this again without fat-fingering the Send button :-)]
Seems like an obvious case for using IPv6. RFC2373 site-local addresses assign a /48, with 16 bits of subnet ID and 64 bits of host ID. The average location probably doesn't have 2**16 extranets on one DMZ; picking a random value usually yields one that nobody you're talking to is also talking to, so almost nobody needs to use NAT for this kind of thing, assuming you plan to tunnel them.
Stephen - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> Cc: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS" <billstewart@att.com>; <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:43 AM Subject: Re: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
On Tue, 27 May 2003, todd glassey wrote:
What I dont understand is the need to stay 1:1 routable. Most all of you larger ISP's could have your own private IP Space by simply running a
NAT'd
infrastructure. Why not do it for all your customers?
And what if you want to host a webserver or mailserver?
What about it? - You set common external-DNS on the customer facing side to refer that address to the tunnel manager and the TM then takes care of the packet's rewriting. Or did I miss something here? As to public publishing, create a virtual server on a set of the ISP's well known addresses and stack the servers up. What's the problem?
Why stop there, what about with local exchanges in the PSTN, you could put
towns on their own extension based PBX and save time in having to allocate
all phone
numbers..
Right!
Steve
Todd
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS" <billstewart@att.com> To: <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:27 PM Subject: RE: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
[Let's try this again without fat-fingering the Send button :-)]
Seems like an obvious case for using IPv6. RFC2373 site-local addresses assign a /48, with 16 bits of subnet ID and 64 bits of host ID. The average location probably doesn't have 2**16 extranets on one DMZ; picking a random value usually yields one that nobody you're talking to is also talking to, so almost nobody needs to use NAT for this kind of thing, assuming you plan to tunnel them.
Subject: RE: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp Date: Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 01:27:09AM -0500 Quoting Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS (billstewart@att.com):
Seems like an obvious case for using IPv6.
The trouble is that these extranet connections are between Sun3 boxes running SunOS 3.5 or somesuch. The extranet area is infested with horrendous legacy and I have a hard time believing it is feasible to convert it to something modern...
RFC2373 site-local addresses assign a /48,
Site-local is on its way out. Thank $DEITY. -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE Place me on a BUFFER counter while you BELITTLE several BELLHOPS in the Trianon Room!! Let me one of your SUBSIDIARIES!
participants (5)
-
Mans Nilsson -
Richard Welty -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS -
todd glassey