IPv6 allocation plan, security, and 6-to-4 conversion

Sat Jan 31 20:21:43 UTC 2015

On 1/30/15 8:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
> 
>> It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't
>> want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6.  Is that
>> true?
>> (I'm getting that from the spamming comments made by others)  Am I
>> supposed to be asking ARIN for a /32 for each region that I want to
>> address?  (They turned down my request for an increase to a /28 last
>> year)
> 
> Not true.  A peek at the global IPv6 routing table shows lots of
> prefixes that are smaller than /32.  One of the hopes with larger
> allocations and assignments was that there would be less bloat in the
> global IPv6 routing table because networks would need to announce fewer
> prefixes.  How well that will hold up in practice remains to be seen :)

Direct assignments exist down to /48s so you can expect to have to
accept announcements down to that size given that they can't concievably
be covered by an aggregate.

>> As far as the v6 to v4 translation is concerned, I'm looking at that for
>> the future - for the time being, we will be dual-stacked.  However, if we
>> move into a new area, based on our current IPv4 inventory, I don't really
>> have enough to assign to each new customer, so I was looking for ways to
>> allow those customers access to properties that are still IPv4 only.  Is
>> there yet another way to do that?
> 
> If you assign a customer IPv6 space only, a translation mechanism is
> needed to allow that customer to reach Internet destinations that only
> speak IPv4 today.  There's no way around that.
> 
> jms
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20150131/0b1c2a9f/attachment.sig>