[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: problem configuring squeeze

Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> writes:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:46:24PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> > There's a problem, however. My hoster won't (can't) give me 
>> > more than a /56 for each rack. I need at least two /56
>> > however (one IPv4 /32 for each IPv6 /64).
>> I fail to see your hosters arguments against giving you e.g. a /48 if
>> you really need it.  Some of us still argue that that should be the
> The argument is basically: our setup doesn't support this, and we
> won't change it to just accomodate you. Want another /56, rent
> another rack. Unfortunately, switching to a different colo is not
> feasible for me at the moment.

The "one size fits all" argument does make a lot of sense, but not the
choice of /56 as default allocation.  If they had done the sensible
thing and provided every "site" (looks like that's a rack to them) with
a /48 then they wouldn't have had this problem.  They've essentially
screwed themselves for no good reason.

Let's just hope others will see this and learn: If you choose /56 as a
default allocation then sooner or later you will have to support either
multiple allocations per site or variable allocation sizes.  If you
choose /48, then you will get away with "one size fits all" and can save
a lot of money on simplified provisioning and support.

>> minimum allocation for end user sites.
>> You do really need more than 256 subnets for each rack?
> I have 3x /24 at the moment, so that alone would require
> 3x /56. I could dish out smaller units than /64 for each
> end user vserver guest, but that would break too many assumption
> so I need to figure out another way. 

I don't think that will be much of a problem, given that you probably
have full control over the vserver network.  Routing on longer prefixes
than /64 work just fine, and there are many advocating using /126 or
/127 for point to point links.

> What options other than 6to4
> with a local relay router with native IPv6 do I have? Tunnels
> (HE, SixXT) are just as deprecated, right?

Static 6in4 tunnels are infinitely better than 6to4.  AFAIK, you can get
a /48 from both HE and SixXS without any questions.  But it does seem a
little backwards, given that your hosting provider does provide native
IPv6 access.  

Personally, I would have gone for the native /56, splitting it up in as
small allocations as necessary/possible.

>> > It just occured to me that I can set up a local 6to4 relay
>> > router http://wiki.debian.org/DebianIPv6 and produce private
>> > IPv6 space for each public IPv4 /32.
>> >
>> > Are there problems associated with this, or can I go ahead
>> > with it?
>> No. Well, you can of course, but... IMHO, 6to4 should die now.  Don't
>> use it.  Note that there's work going on in the IETF trying to move it
>> to historic:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-00
> Well, if my hoster won't give me enough space, and I can't get
> PI space (my hoster won't let me speak BGP) I don't have too 
> many choices.

No, I guess that's the reality we have to face many places at the
moment.  Stupid, but what can we do?  

I do find it extremely weird though, that they will provide you with 3 x
/24 IPv4 allocations but only a single /56 IPv6 allocation. Completely


Reply to: