[153417] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ipv6 book recommendations?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Grundemann)
Tue Jun 5 18:39:50 2012
In-Reply-To: <D335B8CE-C50F-4AF6-858A-36A98CE5FAF9@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:39:14 -0600
From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>
>>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>>> 2. Subnetting in v6 in a nutshell:
>>
>> FWIW - There is a published BCOP on IPv6 subnetting:
>> http://www.ipbcop.org/ratified-bcops/bcop-ipv6-subnetting/
>>
>
> Unfortunately, this BCOP recommends /56s for residential which is
> potentially harmful.
While it does use /56 as an example (mainly because most of the
operators I have spoken to say that is as big as they'll go and many
are shooting for less) but it does NOT make that a recommendation,
from the BCOP:
"This is an example for demonstrative purposes only. Individual
operators will need to determine their own prefix size preference for
serving customers (internal or external). The SMEs of this BCOP highly
recommend a /48 for any site that requires more than one subnet and
that a site be defined as an individual customer in residential
networks."
> I'm also not a fan of the /126 or /127 on point-to-points, but, the theoretical
> issues of neighbor table exhaustion attacks, etc. certainly should not
> be ignored entirely.
Agreed, they must be considered.
Cheers,
~Chris
> Owen
>
--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com
