[195725] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masood Ahmad Shah)
Sun Sep 10 04:47:40 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <3979AE529B56AB47942E2423B707F16E64C27570@RTC-EXCH01.RESERVE.LDS>
From: Masood Ahmad Shah <masoodnt10@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 21:32:16 -0700
To: Kody Vicknair <kvicknair@reservetele.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I don't see any point of using larger Network space for point to point
links or on loopback addresses. To me the best is that 127-Bit prefixes on
IPv6 point-to-point links and /128 on Loopback serves the purpose, and
offers us a lot of advantages such as it prevents us from neighbor
discovery exhaustion attack (rfc6583)
Draft is mainly referring to end user WAN links (i.e. xDSL, Cable, FTTN/H)
and that's a different story where /64 /56 /48 are still open to dispute :P
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Kody Vicknair <kvicknair@reservetele.com>
wrote:
> All,
>
> I=E2=80=99ve been doing some reading in preparation of IPv6 deployment an=
d
> figuring out how we will break up our /32. I think I=E2=80=99m on the rig=
ht track
> in thinking that each customer will be allocated a /48 to do whatever the=
y
> wish with it.
>
> I=E2=80=99ve read recent BCOP drafts that have been approved by the IETF:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554
> It looks like the smallest subnet that should ever be assigned is a /64 o=
n
> a particular link.
>
>
> Some questions that come to mind with IPv6:
>
> In regards to Point to point links my thinking is this:
> Assign a unique /64 to each point to point link with these addresses bein=
g
> Globally routable. This seems to be what our IX providers do when assigni=
ng
> us an IPv6 address. Am I correct in this train of thought? Why/Why not?
>
> In regards to core loopback addressing my initial thoughts are as follows=
:
> Assign a single /64 encompassing all /128=E2=80=99s planned for loopback
> addressing schemes. Should I be using Unique Local addressing for loopbac=
ks
> instead of going with a Globally routeable addressing scheme? Should each
> interface IP configuration have a /64 or a /128?
>
> Also when talking about CPE mgmt addresses what do you think is a
> practical way of going about assigning =E2=80=9CPrivate=E2=80=9D addressi=
ng schemes for cpe
> management purposes.
>
> I=E2=80=99m sure some of these questions will be answered when I dive dee=
per into
> how OSPFv6 works as well as BGP in regards to IPv6.
>
> Are any of you currently running IPv6 and wished you had done something
> differently during the planning phase that may have prevented headaches
> down the road?
>
>
>
>
> Kody Vicknair
> Network Engineer
>
>
> [cid:imagebf3343.JPG@c9d2fbd2.4db10e0d] <http://www.rtconline.com=
>
>
> Tel: 985.536.1214
> Fax: 985.536.0300
> Email: kvicknair@reservetele.com
> Web: www.rtconline.com
>
> Reserve Telecommunications
> 100 RTC Dr
> Reserve, LA 70084
>
>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer:
> The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for
> the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate,
> distribute or be copied. Please notify Kody Vicknair immediately by e-mai=
l
> if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from
> your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroye=
d,
> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Kody Vicknair therefore do=
es
> not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
> message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
>
>
