IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Fri Oct 10 14:45:12 UTC 2014

On Oct 9, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 October 2014 23:18, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the
>> infrastructure.
>> 
>> 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