nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 07:45:12 -0700
On Oct 9, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> wrote:
On 9 October 2014 23:18, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> wrote:On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> wrote:My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in theinfrastructure. Your colleagues are wrong. Again, see RFC6752.Yes, for using private IP addressing RFC 6752 applies and it is why we are not doing it. But you seem to completely fail to understand that RFC 6752 does not apply to the proposed solution. NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered interfaces. Traceroute works. ICMP works. There are no private IP addresses that gets filtered.I am wondering if all the nay sayers would not agree that is it better to have a single public loopback address shared between all my interfaces, than to go with private addressing completely? This is a false dichotomy.Because frankly, that is the alternative.It isn't the only alternative. The *optimal* alternative is to use publicly-routable link addresses, and then protect your infrastructure using iACLs, GTSM, CoPP, et. al.I will as soon as you send me the check to buy addresses for all my links. I got a few. But it appears you do not realize that we ARE using public IPs for our infrastructure. And we ARE using ACLs for protecting it. We are not using addresses for LINKS, neither public nor private. And it is not for security but to conserve expensive address space.
Addresses are not expensive. You can get up to a /40 from ARIN for $500 one-tim and $100/year. Are you really trying to convince me that you have ore than 16.7 million links? (and that’s assuming you assign a /64 per link). I’m sorry, but this argument utterly fails under any form of analysis. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Tim Raphael (Oct 11)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Roland Dobbins (Oct 11)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Sander Steffann (Oct 12)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Randy Carpenter (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Enno Rey (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Måns Nilsson (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Frank Habicht (Oct 11)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address William Herrin (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address joel jaeggli (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Mark Andrews (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Owen DeLong (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Roland Dobbins (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out William Herrin (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Baldur Norddahl (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Roland Dobbins (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Tore Anderson (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Lee (Oct 11)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Owen DeLong (Oct 09)