2 edits | reply to NetDog
Re: [IPv6] Comcast IPv6 Address Assignment/Delegation Okay,
Rephrasing here.
Whenever I configure my juniper to request ::/60 ; I'll receive a /64 back from Comcast.
If I create another IAPD-ID, say, 1, and put another preference for ::/60, I'll get another /64 back, but all routing then stops for the original /64 I received. I assume because it's overwriting the route entry on the ISP end with the new /64.
** So I think I found my problem **
It seems the SSG5 is not passing the IA_PD Prefix option aloing with the IA_PD Option. Which would explain why I'm getting a /64, because the DHCP server is defaulting to a /64 when no request for a larger prefix comes through.
I've sent my flow logs off to Juniper to see if they can figure it out and give me an answer. |
|
 NetDogPremium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:4
 ·Comcast
| said by magamiako:I've sent my flow logs off to Juniper to see if they can figure it out and give me an answer.
PM me the Juniper case number and I will troubleshoot this on my end as well. PM me your model number as well. |
|
| reply to magamiako
said by magamiako:Whenever I configure my juniper to request ::/60 ; I'll receive a /64 back from Comcast.
If I create another IAPD-ID, say, 1, and put another preference for ::/60, I'll get another /64 back, but all routing then stops for the original /64 I received. I assume because it's overwriting the route entry on the ISP end with the new /64. I'm seeing something similar using WIDE-DHCPv6 on a Linux (CentOS) box.
If I request ::/60 I just get a /64 back. However, if I request 2 IA_PD's in the same request using different ID's, the server happily obliges. (The packet looks something like "Req IA_NA, ID 0; Req IA_PD, ID 1; Req IA_PD, ID 2"). Both of the returned /64's work fine after a several seconds/minute delay (I'm assuming the routes are propagating during this time).
/M |
|
NetDogPremium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | said by mackey:said by magamiako:Whenever I configure my juniper to request ::/60 ; I'll receive a /64 back from Comcast.
If I create another IAPD-ID, say, 1, and put another preference for ::/60, I'll get another /64 back, but all routing then stops for the original /64 I received. I assume because it's overwriting the route entry on the ISP end with the new /64. I'm seeing something similar using WIDE-DHCPv6 on a Linux (CentOS) box. If I request ::/60 I just get a /64 back. However, if I request 2 IA_PD's in the same request using different ID's, the server happily obliges. (The packet looks something like "Req IA_NA, ID 0; Req IA_PD, ID 1; Req IA_PD, ID 2"). Both of the returned /64's work fine after a several seconds/minute delay (I'm assuming the routes are propagating during this time). /M Does your CentOS Box have more then one VLAN or LAN behind the WAN? If not there is no point in asking for anything less then /64? Do you really need that may networks that a /60 will give you? Just asking... |
|
| said by NetDog:Does your CentOS Box have more then one VLAN or LAN behind the WAN? If not there is no point in asking for anything less then /64? Do you really need that may networks that a /60 will give you? Just asking... I thought this thread was about the current state of getting something larger then a /64 on Comcasts' network, not justifying the need for something larger. My bad.
RFC 6177 says ISPs should issue something significantly larger then a /64 and "the default assignment size should take into consideration the likelihood that an end site will have need for multiple subnets in the future and avoid the IPv4 practice of having frequent and continual justification for obtaining small amounts of additional space."
I need more then a single /64. I shouldn't need to justify requesting something as tiny as a /60. Back on page 1 jjmb  said the default size later this year will be a /60. Why are you guys even thinking about doing that if you feel no one has a valid reason for getting anything larger then a /64?
/M |
|
 NetFixerFrom my cold dead handsPremium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
·Comcast Business..
 ·Vonage
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
| said by mackey:I need more then a single /64. I shouldn't need to justify requesting something as tiny as a /60. Back on page 1 jjmb said the default size later this year will be a /60. Why are you guys even thinking about doing that if you feel no one has a valid reason for getting anything larger then a /64?
It's called the left hand vs right hand syndrome. It is a common malady in many (if not most) large organizations. 
--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. |
|
|
|
NetDogPremium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to mackey
This is me just asking a question, trying to understand what people are thinking. Yes I have read that RFC, and a lot of others on IPv6 as well. I was thinking we could have a dialogue about this subject but I guess not.
So I will leave topic with this "Comcast will change the default to a /60 at a later date, but today it is /64. If your device supports requesting a smaller prefix up till a /60 you can request it." |
|
| How do I know if my Linksys router supports these different things? Is there a way for Comcast to check? |
|
biomeshPremium
join:2006-07-08
Tomball, TX | reply to NetDog
My guess is that users will setup guest vlans or networks. This could also be used for vpn configurations in order to isolate their 'business network' from their 'home network'. |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to mackey
said by mackey:RFC 6177 says ISPs should issue something significantly larger then a /64 and "the default assignment size should take into consideration the likelihood that an end site will have need for multiple subnets in the future and avoid the IPv4 practice of having frequent and continual justification for obtaining small amounts of additional space."
I need more then a single /64. I shouldn't need to justify requesting something as tiny as a /60. Back on page 1 jjmb said the default size later this year will be a /60. Why are you guys even thinking about doing that if you feel no one has a valid reason for getting anything larger then a /64?
/M
A bit of an over reaction, no? It was simply a question asked, not a demand for justification on how or for what purpose are you planning on using it - a fair question. I'd be willing to bet if we really took a look at it, this would fall more under the "I want to tinker" category, which is alright, but lets not masquerade it as something which it is not. |
|
NetDogPremium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Mike Wolf
said by Mike Wolf:How do I know if my Linksys router supports these different things? Is there a way for Comcast to check?
Ok back to a dialogue??? 
Tell you the truth I only know two routers that support the a smaller prefix hint. Cisco IOS and a Cisco RV042G, other then that I have not tried other devices. But if you request a smaller prefix the DHCP server will grant to your device but depending on the CMTS your on will depend on if your route will get injected. It is safe at this time to just stick with the /64.
I will post when it is safe to request a smaller prefix. |
|
NetDogPremium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to biomesh
said by biomesh:My guess is that users will setup guest vlans or networks.
This is what I am doing as well..
said by biomesh:This could also be used for vpn configurations in order to isolate their 'business network' from their 'home network'.
This is totally the type of innovation I was looking for in that comment.. I didn't even think about a VPN type VLAN back to the office.. |
|
| said by NetDog:This is totally the type of innovation I was looking for in that comment.. No, the way you phrased it and stated the obvious ("If not there is no point in asking for anything less then /64") it was clearly a challenge while saying you didn't think there was any reason to request something larger then a /64.
Of course there are multiple VLANs attached to it; I wouldn't be requesting something larger then a /64 otherwise. All the PCs and tablets are on one, a "guest" network is another, there are 4 or 5 VoIP phones and an Asterisk box on yet another, a locked down network that's only used for cleaning viruses, and while it's not really used any more, yet another is set up that had a couple file servers/NAS boxes on it.
Yes I'm aware that's only 5, and yes I'm aware that a /60 can be broken into 16 subnets, but there's no reason to be stingy with v6 addresses like there is with v4's and I like having elbow room to handle whatever tomorrow throws at me. I prefer to configure stuff once and not look at it again for quite a long time 
I considered the VPN angle, but for my needs there's no reason to have an internet routable address assigned to that interface.
/M |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | While I'm glad Comcast is going to give out a /60, and I'm not trying to pick on you personally, but you're saying 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 IPv6 addresses just won't be enough for say 256 real / virtual devices in the home? |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | said by AVonGauss:While I'm glad Comcast is going to give out a /60, and I'm not trying to pick on you personally, but you're saying 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 IPv6 addresses just won't be enough for say 256 real / virtual devices in the home?
Each VLAN or routed segment should be a /64 for the foreseeable future (netstacks stink, even without SLAAC in use). Which is why some segment (edit: network-pun unintended) of Comcast's residential users will need a /60. |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Oh I'm sure we can come up with all sorts of nifty ways to use routable IPv6 segments, but from the home user perspective, I think most other than a truly isolated guest network are probably more a product of tinkering rather than a definable need. I think Comcast's approach of providing additional routable segments only to those that request and know how to with DHCP-PD to be a very good compromise. Its far more than I personally was expecting from any decently sized residential provider to offer. |
|
| said by AVonGauss:Its far more than I personally was expecting from any decently sized residential provider to offer. On Uverse, AT&T offers a /60 for each IPv4 address you have.
/M |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | said by mackey:On Uverse, AT&T offers a /60 for each IPv4 address you have.
/M
I wasn't aware that U-verse was offering native IPv6 at this point, though admittedly I don't follow it as closely as I once did. If they are now offering it to residential U-verse subscribers that is good news indeed. We might just get this IPv6 migration thing done in under two decades after all. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by AVonGauss:I wasn't aware that U-verse was offering native IPv6 at this point, though admittedly I don't follow it as closely as I once did. If they are now offering it to residential U-verse subscribers that is good news indeed. We might just get this IPv6 migration thing done in under two decades after all.
It isn't native yet. They're using 6RD. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to NetDog
Not sure what you mean by "back to a dialogue"
Anyway if you guys wanna do some testing on the IPv6 stuff, your're welcome to use me as a test subject What would requesting a smaller prefix entail, what would I gain, and what would I lose? |
|
