[179247] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Small IX IP Blocks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Sat Apr 4 19:03:04 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 18:02:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <72541.1428187777@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
That makes sense. I do recall now reading about having that 8 bit separation between tiers of networks. However, in an IX everyone is supposed to be able to talk to everyone else. Traditionally (AFAIK), it's all been on the same subnet. At least the ones I've been involved with have been single subnets, but that's v4 too.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 5:49:37 PM
Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks
On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:06:02 -0500, Mike Hammett said:
> I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every IX
> location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), even though
> we nqever expected anywhere near that many on a given fabric. Then okay, how do
< we d o v6? We got a /48, so the thought was a /64 for each.
You probably want a /56 for each so you can hand a /64 to each customner.
That way, customer isolation becomes easy because it's a routing problem.
If customers share a subnet, it gets a little harder....
