[179250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Small IX IP Blocks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laszlo Hanyecz)
Sat Apr 4 21:27:08 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo@heliacal.net>
In-Reply-To: <31685005.14783.1428194111120.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:27:02 +0000
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Mike,
I think it's fine to cut it up smaller than /24, and might actually help =
in keeping people from routing the IX prefix globally.
-Laszlo
On Apr 5, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
> Okay, so I decided to look at what current IXes are doing.=20
>=20
> It looks like AMS-IX, Equinix and Coresite as well as some of the =
smaller IXes are all using /64s for their IX fabrics. Seems to be a slam =
dunk then as how to handle the IPv6. We've got a /48, so a /64 per IX. =
For all of those advocating otherwise, do you have much experience with =
IXes? Multiple people talked about routing. There is no routing within =
an IX. I may grow, but an IX in a tier-2 American city will never scale =
larger than AMS-IX. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for =
me.=20
>=20
> Back to v4, I went through a few pages of PeeringDB and most everyone =
used a /24 or larger. INEX appears to use a /25 for each of their =
segments. IX Australia uses mainly /24s, but two locations split a /24 =
into /25s. A couple of the smaller single location US IXes used /25s and =
/26s. It seems there's precedent for people using smaller than /24s, but =
it's not overly common. Cash and address space preservation. What does =
the community think about IXes on smaller than /24s?=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> From: "Brendan Halley" <brendan@halley.net.au>=20
> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 6:10:34 PM=20
> Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks=20
>=20
>=20
> IPv4 and IPv6 subnets are different. While a single IPv4 is taken to =
be a single device, an IPv6 /64 is designed to be treated as an end user =
subnet.=20
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177 section 3.=20
> On 05/04/2015 9:05 am, "Mike Hammett" < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote:=20
>=20
>=20
> 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.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
>=20
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" < Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu >=20
> To: "Mike Hammett" < nanog@ics-il.net >=20
> Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org >=20
> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 5:49:37 PM=20
> Subject: Re: Small IX IP Blocks=20
>=20
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:06:02 -0500, Mike Hammett said:=20
>=20
>> I am starting up a small IX. The thought process was a /24 for every =
IX=20
>> location (there will be multiple of them geographically disparate), =
even though=20
>> we nqever expected anywhere near that many on a given fabric. Then =
okay, how do=20
> < we d o v6? We got a /48, so the thought was a /64 for each.=20
>=20
> You probably want a /56 for each so you can hand a /64 to each =
customner.=20
>=20
> That way, customer isolation becomes easy because it's a routing =
problem.=20
> If customers share a subnet, it gets a little harder....=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
