[195745] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Howard)
Mon Sep 11 18:17:40 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 18:08:51 -0400
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: Kody Vicknair <kvicknair@reservetele.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <3979AE529B56AB47942E2423B707F16E64C27570@RTC-EXCH01.RESERVE.LDS>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9/9/17, 12:06 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Kody Vicknair"
<nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of kvicknair@reservetele.com> wrote:
>All,
>
>I=E2=80=99ve been doing some reading in preparation of IPv6 deployment and
>figuring out how we will break up our /32. I think I=E2=80=99m on the right trac=
k
>in thinking that each customer will be allocated a /48 to do whatever
>they wish with it.
Yes.
>
>I=E2=80=99ve read recent BCOP drafts that have been approved by the IETF:
>https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554
BCOP isn=E2=80=99t an IETF BCP. But that=E2=80=99s a really minor detail; BCOPs much
better operator input than most IETF activities (IMHO, as an active IETF
participant).
>It looks like the smallest subnet that should ever be assigned is a /64
>on 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
>being Globally routable. This seems to be what our IX providers do when
>assigning us an IPv6 address. Am I correct in this train of thought?
>Why/Why not?
Yes, the general guidance is to reserve a /64 for the link and configure a
very small subnet (like /127) on the interfaces, to avoid a ping-pong
attack.
>
>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
>loopbacks instead of going with a Globally routeable addressing scheme?
>Should each interface IP configuration have a /64 or a /128?
You can use ULAs for this; I know of a moderately sized network that does.
I think most people still use GUA. You=E2=80=99re not wrong either way, though I
know some people get emotional about ULA.
>
>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 addressing schemes fo=
r
>cpe management purposes.
Reserve another block from your /32 and route it separately.
As somebody else said, if you find you=E2=80=99re running out of address space in
IPv6, there=E2=80=99s no shame in requesting more than a /32.
>
>I=E2=80=99m sure some of these questions will be answered when I dive deeper int=
o
>how OSPFv6 works as well as BGP in regards to IPv6.
Maybe, but don=E2=80=99t panic. It=E2=80=99s not significantly harder in IPv6 than in
IPv4.=20
>
>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?
I always tell people: you=E2=80=99re going to rewrite your address plan three
times. Do what you can with it, then start deploying through the network.
You=E2=80=99ll see what changes you need to make once you know how your network i=
s
unique.
I wish I=E2=80=99d pushed harder for /48s for customers from the beginning, even
though we would=E2=80=99ve needed more address space. I wish I=E2=80=99d started sooner=
,
but more than that I wish my vendors had started sooner, especially CPE
vendors.
I wish I had just replaced broken equipment rather than working around it.
I wish I had had better monitoring of both IPv4 and IPv6 specific systems,
so I could tell when one address family failed.
I wish I had been able to plan my transition technology earlier, so I
could move from dual-stack to IPv6.
Lee
>
>
>
>
>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-mail 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,
>destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Kody Vicknair
>therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
>contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
>
