Hi all, What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts? Thanks, --Richard [1] <http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html>
On 1/12/2011 10:49 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts?
Thanks, --Richard
Are you talking about assigning /56s per POP, enterprise site? If /56s are just in your iBGP..shouldn't be a problem. You're going to aggregate and just announce your /48 to your eBGP peers, yes??
In message <4D2E776F.2080400@kenweb.org>, ML writes:
On 1/12/2011 10:49 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts?
Thanks, --Richard
Are you talking about assigning /56s per POP, enterprise site?
If /56s are just in your iBGP..shouldn't be a problem. You're going to aggregate and just announce your /48 to your eBGP peers, yes??
If there are multiple indendent end sites then get a /48 for each of them. A /48 is for a SITE not a ENTERPRISE. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
If you are going to have each site connected separately to the outside world, you will want a /48 for each site. If you are going to aggregate them internally, you can use whatever you want, although you should be able to get a /48 for each site anyway. You don't want to announce anything longer than a /48 to the outside world. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President - IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (800)578-6381, Opt. 1 ---- ----- Original Message -----
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts?
Thanks, --Richard
If you have to route them separately, your best bet is to go back to ARIN under the Multiple Discreet Networks policy and get a block of /48s. Tastes great, fewer problems. Owen On Jan 12, 2011, at 7:49 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts?
Thanks, --Richard
Hi, On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:49:15 -0500 Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts?
Traditionally, /48s are per-site. You should get a /48 for each site, in reality something like a /44 will do nicely giving you two additional /48 for growth. William
On Jan 12, 2011 7:50 PM, "Richard Barnes" <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts?
Is it possible you should be using PA space from your ISP? An ISP would have no issue providing a /48 per site. Not too many details were given about your requirements or circumstances ... PA may fit.
Thanks, --Richard
if you have multiple sites you should request a direct assignmnet later than /48. previous $employer recieved a /44 direct assignment on the basis of north american footprint. On 1/13/11 4:49 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts?
Thanks, --Richard
Richard's employer is exactly the kind of organization that has not been able to effectively multi-home their discrete branch-offices on the IPv4 Internet, because RIR allocation policy set the bar for receiving IPv4 addresses for those small locations just high enough to steer us away from that "feature" or "problem," depending on how you look at it. If every Richard Barnes announces a few dozen /48s into the global BGP table, it will not be long before the 300k+ IPv4 BGP table looks neat and organized, and the CIDR Report will come out each week with a message begging e.g. Starbucks to aggregate their coffee shop wireless hot-spots, instead of shaming Bell South for having a large number of de-aggregates for their substantial ISP business. Most people do not know about the "multi-homing feature" designed into IPv6. Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, which will no longer be kept in check by a limited pool of IP addresses and policies that make it a little difficult for a very small network to become multi-homed. This may be another looming IPv6 headache without a sufficient solution to set good practices now, before deployment sky-rockets. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Most people do not know about the "multi-homing feature" designed into IPv6. Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, which will no longer be kept in check by a limited pool of IP addresses and policies that make it a little difficult for a very small network to become multi-homed.
This may be another looming IPv6 headache without a sufficient solution to set good practices now, before deployment sky-rockets.
It's well known that IPv6 will require a scalable routing solution and that one has not yet been developed. I'll be surprised if there isn't more progress out of IETF on this issue in the near future. Owen
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Most people do not know about the "multi-homing feature" designed into IPv6. Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, which will no longer be kept in check by a limited pool of IP addresses and policies that make it a little difficult for a very small network to become multi-homed.
This may be another looming IPv6 headache without a sufficient solution to set good practices now, before deployment sky-rockets.
It's well known that IPv6 will require a scalable routing solution and that one has not yet been developed. I'll be surprised if there isn't more progress out of IETF on this issue in the near future.
Dear Owen, If you have some idea in your mind propose something for IETF. BoF sessions are open for completely new proposal: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/bof-procedures.html or you can directly propose something for the particular wg: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:49 , Owen DeLong wrote:
Most people do not know about the "multi-homing feature" designed into IPv6. Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, which will no longer be kept in check by a limited pool of IP addresses and policies that make it a little difficult for a very small network to become multi-homed.
This may be another looming IPv6 headache without a sufficient solution to set good practices now, before deployment sky-rockets.
It's well known that IPv6 will require a scalable routing solution and that one has not yet been developed. I'll be surprised if there isn't more progress out of IETF on this issue in the near future.
The RRG of the IRTF has spent the last two years on this topic. A summary of the discussed solutions can be find in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-16 A spin off of that activity is the LISP WG in the IETF (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/charter/) Luigi
Owen
At 22-07-28164 20:59, Richard Barnes wrote:
Hi all,
What IPv6 prefix lengths are people accepting in BGP from peers/customers? My employer just got a /48 allocation from ARIN, and we're trying to figure out how to support multiple end sites out of this (probably around 10). I was thinking about assigning a /56 per site, but looking at the BGP table stats on potaroo.net [1], it looks like this is not too common (only .29% of prefixes). Thoughts?
Thanks,
Hi Richard, Most major transit providers with IPv6 support filter at a maximum prefix length of /48 [1] Also, some guidance in subnetting can be found at several places on the web [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_pro... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_subnetting_reference
participants (12)
-
Cameron Byrne -
Jeff Wheeler -
Joel Jaeggli -
Luigi Iannone -
Mark Andrews -
Michiel Klaver -
ML -
Mohacsi Janos -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Carpenter -
Richard Barnes -
William Pitcock