[195228] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some advice on IPv6 planning and ARIN request, please
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jul 7 21:06:15 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMOPTEzBV-n4DXfpdSj+nydrj=SM717P83EFUrvTpGfwWrr2nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 18:06:04 -0700
To: "Oliver O'Boyle" <oliver.oboyle@gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Oliver,
I=E2=80=99ll mostly second what Bill has said here. However, I encourage =
you to actually
consider a /48 per guest room as well as a /48 per hotel for the hotel =
itself.
Yes, this is excessive, but IPv6 was designed with these types of =
excesses in mind.
We don=E2=80=99t yet know the scope and breadth of what will come out of =
IoT development,
but one thing we do know for sure=E2=80=A6 Development tends to get =
stymied by whatever
turns into the lowest common denominator among available technologies =
out there,
so if 10 hotel chains give their guests /48s and 2 give out /60s and one =
gives
out /64s, development may well lock everyone into nothing better than =
what can
be done with a /64 even if better is available.
We=E2=80=99ve seen this time and again with products that depend on =
autodiscovery processes
that rely on everything being on the same LAN and assume that they can =
just trust
the NAT router to protect that LAN from anything else. This is clearly a =
very bad
strategy to anyone who understands networking, yet if you walk into your =
local
Best Buy, more of the =E2=80=9Cinternet enabled=E2=80=9D products on the =
shelf have this behavior
than don=E2=80=99t=E2=80=A6 Far more.
Owen
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 17:39 , Oliver O'Boyle <oliver.oboyle@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Bill,
>=20
> Thanks for the input. I don't consider us an isp, though i suppose i =
can
> see how that argument could me made. Hotels are both simple and
> complicated. There is a mix of our staff and equipment, guests and =
their
> equipment, and brands with their equipment. But really it's just one
> operating entity that ultimayely isn't that much different than any =
other
> enterprise out there. Now multiply that by 60-65 sites spread across =
the
> country and we need to manage our 6000 staff and networks accordingly. =
We
> operate 100% of the hotel, top to bottom, not just the technology.
>=20
> I wouldn't want ARIN or anyone else thinking we were an ISP if we =
aren't.
> Particulary if that creates problems in the future as rules (and =
possibly
> costs) change.
>=20
> However, if what you are saying is that registerong as an ISP is =
actually
> the correct way to go about this in ARIN's eyes as well, then that's a
> different story.
>=20
> Thanks for the tip on IoT sizing. That's precisely the kind of thing i =
am
> concerned about being constrained with in the future if we size sites =
too
> small.
>=20
> Oliver
>=20
> On Jul 7, 2017 6:18 PM, "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Oliver O'Boyle =
<oliver.oboyle@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>=20
>> We're an end-user org and qualify for a /40 assignment because we =
operate
>> over 60 sites and some of those are/will be multihomed.
>=20
>=20
> Hi Oliver,
>=20
> I second Ken's notion. You're trying to be an ISP under the end-user =
rules.
> However transient, your users are mostly customers rather than staff. =
Just
> register as an ISP and get the default /32.
>=20
> IIRC, ARIN sparsely allocates IPv6 so if you go back for more =
addresses
> there is a high probability they'll just increase your netmask.
>=20
> Finally, /56 or /60 per guest, not /64. IPv6 can do nifty IoT things =
like
> collecting all of a guest's devices behind his personal firewall but =
it
> doesn't work if you've only assigned a /64.
>=20
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
