[154866] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Jul 14 20:07:02 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1342299863.10346.1971.camel@pc2>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:02:07 -0700
To: Laurent GUERBY <laurent@guerby.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 14, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 09:18 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:08 AM, J=E9r=F4me Nicolle wrote:
>>=20
>>> Le 13/07/12 16:38, -Hammer- a =E9crit :
>>>> In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routable"
>>>=20
>>> I guess "non-routable IPv4" translates well to "non-routable IPv6", =
thus
>>> putting Link-Local addresses on top of the list.
>>>=20
>>> Thought you may use th auto-configured addresses for that purpose, =
you
>>> also may set LLAs to your liking. I use fe80::zone_ID:interface_ID , =
and
>>> set such LLA to every gateways to make routing tables more legible,
>>> those ID beeing arbitrary 16bit values.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Given that zone_IDs in my environments consist of terms like:
>>=20
>> fxp0
>> en0
>> eth0
>> ge-0/0/0.0
>> etc.
>>=20
>> How, exactly, would you turn those into part of an IPv6 address?
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> We use LLA to "virtualize" interconnection to our users:
> their network configuration is always static default via fe80::nnnn
> and we route their /56 prefix to fe80::xxxx:yyyy where xxxx:yyyy is
> unique per user - if our user want to do some routing of course. =
Since
> we don't have GUA interconnections we don't have to manage them inside
> our AS and we can move user stuff around without having them changing
> anything to their static configuration.
>=20
> We give a /56 IPv6 per /32 IPv4 to our user which does /48 =3D /24 =3D =
256
> "IP", it's nice to have more than one /64 around for some uses.
>=20
> Is there any "mass" hoster around that does provide by default a pefix
> larger than /64 and that does route it to the user? It's quite simple =
to
> do in IPv6 and we have the address space for it.
>=20
> Sincerely,
>=20
> Laurent
Why not just give each end-site a /48?
An end-site with a /24 may only need a single or a few subnets while an =
end-site with a /32 may have a host of subnets behind their IPv4 NAT =
gateway. Making IPv6 topological assumptions for your end-users based on =
their IPv4 presentation makes little sense to me and is likely a =
disservice to your end users.
Owen
