headers
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ | 1 Mar 2006 09:55
Picon

Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

Hi all,

We have submitted before yesterday a new draft, it seems is still not
available at the IETF repository, but meanwhile, the document can be reached
at:
http://www.consulintel.euro6ix.org/ietf/draft-palet-v6ops-point2point-00.txt

Comments welcome !

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information
is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including
attached files, is prohibited.
Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Tim Chown | 1 Mar 2006 10:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

Hi Jordi,

I think this draft is covered as one section of the Address Assignment 
Considerations draft that Gunter submitted last week?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-addcon-00.txt

Tim

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 04:55:41PM +0800, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We have submitted before yesterday a new draft, it seems is still not
> available at the IETF repository, but meanwhile, the document can be reached
> at:
> http://www.consulintel.euro6ix.org/ietf/draft-palet-v6ops-point2point-00.txt
> 
> Comments welcome !
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Durand, Alain | 1 Mar 2006 10:28
Picon

RE: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

Jordi,

This draft makes the assumption that all point-to-point links are
connecting
ISP to Customer.

This is obviously not true.

   - Alain.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@... 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@...] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:56 AM
> To: v6ops@...
> Subject: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links 
> and Easing the Addressing Plans
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We have submitted before yesterday a new draft, it seems is 
> still not available at the IETF repository, but meanwhile, 
> the document can be reached
> at:
> http://www.consulintel.euro6ix.org/ietf/draft-palet-v6ops-poin
t2point-00.txt
> 
> Comments welcome !
> 
> Regards,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ | 1 Mar 2006 10:31
Picon

Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

Hi Tim,

Not sure if it is the same, to be honest didn't saw it before. I will take a
look.

I've prepared this in December, when working with a customer, but didn't
wanted to submit it until we had the time to try with different routing
protocols, which we did only last week.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Tim Chown <tjc@...>
> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@...>
> Fecha: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:05:55 +0000
> Para: "v6ops@..." <v6ops@...>
> Asunto: Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the
> Addressing Plans
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> I think this draft is covered as one section of the Address Assignment
> Considerations draft that Gunter submitted last week?
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-addcon-00.txt
> 
> Tim
> 
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 04:55:41PM +0800, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi all,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ | 1 Mar 2006 10:50
Picon

Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

Hi Alain,

May be some text need to be fixed, but the idea behind the document is still
correct, and will work the same regardless of being ISP-customer or
something different.

I will take care about this clarification in a new version. Thanks !

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@...>
> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@...>
> Fecha: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 04:28:51 -0500
> Para: <jordi.palet@...>, <v6ops@...>
> Conversación: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing
> the Addressing Plans
> Asunto: RE: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the
> Addressing Plans
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> This draft makes the assumption that all point-to-point links are
> connecting
> ISP to Customer.
> 
> This is obviously not true.
> 
>    - Alain.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim Chown | 1 Mar 2006 10:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 05:31:49PM +0800, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> Not sure if it is the same, to be honest didn't saw it before. I will take a
> look.
> 
> I've prepared this in December, when working with a customer, but didn't
> wanted to submit it until we had the time to try with different routing
> protocols, which we did only last week.

The aim of Gunter's draft is to give guidance for one of the most common
questions that seems to come up at the moment, i.e. 'OK, I'm deploying IPv6,
but what addressing plan should I use and what addressing gotchas are there 
that I need to avoid?'

What we've done in the first draft of that is to create a strawman text
for discussion in Dallas.   Point to point discussion is one facet of the
draft, but there are many others.   I've not yet formed an opinion on the
idea in your draft, but it seems it could be captured as one part of this
bigger 'considerations' draft.

Tim
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ole Troan | 1 Mar 2006 11:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

> We have submitted before yesterday a new draft, it seems is still not
> available at the IETF repository, but meanwhile, the document can be reached
> at:
> http://www.consulintel.euro6ix.org/ietf/draft-palet-v6ops-point2point-00.txt
>
> Comments welcome !

   3.  Numbering Interfaces

   Often, in point-to-point links, hardware tokens are not available, so
   frequently they are manually numbered sequentially with most of the
   bits cleared to zero.  This also match the need to keep certain bits
   (u, g) cleared.  This numbering makes as well easier to remember the
   interfaces, which typically will become numbered as 1 (with 63

point to point links, even though they don't have L2 addresses, do
have link-local addresses. I don't know of any implementation which
requires you to manually configure these. typically the implementation
reuses a link-local from an interface with a L2 address.

   4.  Routing Aggregation of the Point-to-Point Links

   Following this approach and assuming that a shorter prefix is
   typically delegated to a customer, in general a /48 [4], it is
   possible to simplify the routing aggregation of the point-to-point
   links.  Towards this, the point-to-point link may be numbered using
   the first /64 of a given /48.

using the first (or any) subnet of a larger prefix, breaks the
conceptual model of DHCP prefix delegation. the prefix is delegated to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Durand, Alain | 1 Mar 2006 11:20
Picon

Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

The part about picking a well know /64 out a the /48 certainly won't work in the general case...
Neither will the idea that the ISP has IID=1 and the customer had IID=2...

There won't be much left except the recommendation to use /64.

   - Alain.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops <at> ops.ietf.org
To: v6ops <at> ops.ietf.org
Sent: Wed Mar 01 04:50:41 2006
Subject: Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

Hi Alain,

May be some text need to be fixed, but the idea behind the document is still
correct, and will work the same regardless of being ISP-customer or
something different.

I will take care about this clarification in a new version. Thanks !

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand <at> cable.comcast.com>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Vincent Jardin | 1 Mar 2006 11:30

Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

Hi,

Please, this draft should metion:
  - the cases when there are only link-local addresses

  - because it is mainly focus on ISPs cases, it should describe too how 
it fits with Prefix Delegation: my recommandation would be not to put 
any addresses ont the point to point interface (there is already 
link-local addresses which are enough for routing protocols).

  - there are some drawbacks of putting an IPv6 /64 on the provider side,
       + because you will create loops if redirection is not properly 
implemented on point to point interfaces (I mean a good implementation 
and configuration should never send redirect packets)
       + because you will loose the support of the anycast address 
sub-network. It means that the LNS or BAS will answer instead of the CPE.

  - what's about the support of the anycast address sub-network ?

  - what's about multi-links to a same site ? For instance, we know some 
cases where you have 2 point to point links with ECMPv6 for load 
balancing. Section 4 cannot be applied in that case.

FYI and from my experience, for ISPs, it is useless to number the IPv6 
links. Only link local is enough.  From an implementation point of view, 
you just need to add a reject (or blackhole) /48 route for each users 
through each interface. Because you have a same route through many 
interfaces, you will have the benefit of ECMPv6 support.

Maybe, it could be useful (and I do doubt), to number only the IPv6
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Bonness, Olaf | 1 Mar 2006 11:41
Favicon

AW: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

> 
>    4.  Routing Aggregation of the Point-to-Point Links
> 
>    Following this approach and assuming that a shorter prefix is
>    typically delegated to a customer, in general a /48 [4], it is
>    possible to simplify the routing aggregation of the point-to-point
>    links.  Towards this, the point-to-point link may be numbered using
>    the first /64 of a given /48.
> 
> using the first (or any) subnet of a larger prefix, breaks the
> conceptual model of DHCP prefix delegation. the prefix is delegated to
> the requesting router and cannot be used to number the link between
> the delegating and requesting router.

My assumption from a service provider point of view would be to use a dedicated sub-preaefix (e.g. /48)of my
own aggregate to address the point-to-point links (e.g. /64)  to the custumers (in the case I have to do this).

cu
	Olaf
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |

Gmane