From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 284493B2A4 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id p3so13611242pld.10 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:05:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Roa0fRnKNrMnWKlfGpni0mWQeD+4jS0aF5MRnTbMzEQ=; b=ahptRDgtBt39g1jNX7lBY1dNMmtgQlivpZr2mIMGqmSxhpi/hmq/6Z8LS5w5pDLOgR EpN6CXbpEhECeUw7c1/vqPYm/YxcTV06+gR4zO8Xyi4QkBteA3LtA7LKnwNOVFWjHLKO HoLYPvtHfcBQEqL4EwZCLazMB7XuSPJd7QyBqSMdhiiXJstxTagdH7s8+SzCU2heBY3a sr9zofdsLaJSrXbvLTit4N0kCRxotNYnhGpMoPbMjeMQgQhvRJCN4Ck+7GyiE6898Xzk qe3uQOgiCuOyBefyCsTHbGwMoESoIA65CR30NQMxrhbOhwztXracfGTXjWzNbolLcCI3 EcDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Roa0fRnKNrMnWKlfGpni0mWQeD+4jS0aF5MRnTbMzEQ=; b=hxEUXag6+tFQgyHfnAXkFs2zjZkQ9u8ZFd+hjX4NMM3yr/PWP+kFwzg6/ElOpx2EU/ Lw4mUAKmgHS4+DQvx/OvRUl6xsRiLWbtUEB9/O4mFwBg2R7Vy2E6lIdHliRAnWAUe7mv C1G1Ans9YU7kFWa4b06bzB82Rh+qmXEX9BKs6q5uZVUalc+LT/leeo+cJ7QDfio1pWRP odcmGhQ2gQ7WhDPtK3FCK5dG9ehu/qVd9aTbhxZsb6mE8NcYnm/dSRiXmK6eVC9MJMrY 6urFDSeMJihELkiqrtb00L3k+Op6EBfXeqa9NMCjKM9dDBJmJX7HaLsbmcfBAjW7kiSH h2lg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2Zks8TsC3TaD1ptENwR3IrsxHz+50v/EcMNWQrJhRbZ0U9X9RN lDy9v4fOxW3ckjIlAi7XKd+pSwESTB8g66Sgl9EhjofA X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6M44j7y1MP450lDBkpV+epIrY+ga4Jbn/pVJDEZ/sWYZEVAeK8I3swFJPOuUagPyZyhS/EC5Jc6HnEIQVBPeM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7792:b0:182:9404:f226 with SMTP id o18-20020a170902779200b001829404f226mr45396731pll.76.1666800340844; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 09:05:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Herbert Wolverson Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 11:05:30 -0500 Message-ID: Cc: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003a455405ebf2324f" Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] how are you doing on ipv4 address supply? X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 16:05:42 -0000 --0000000000003a455405ebf2324f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Actually had a conversation with our primary upstream provider yesterday about IPv6 (and why they won't provide it to us). One of their lead engineers, once plied with beer, said that every time they've deployed it they get 99% of it working well and 1% of things mysteriously stop working, or go wonky. That was similar to our experience a few years ago. It mostly helped a lot, but chasing down the "hey, this advertises a v6 address and doesn't actually support it" issues drove us crazy. Right now, we don't have enough IPv4 addresses, but that's being rectified. We mostly do CGNAT and 10.64 addresses in the meantime, with public IPs assigned where they are needed (mostly through a tunnel setup to avoid subnetting waste). Tunnels are a pain, but they work (once you chase down all of the MTU issues). Which reminds me, I have "can we support MPLS?" on my crazy notes list. I know that Preseem and similar don't try, but we're already reading deeply enough into the ethernet header that saying "this is an MPLS label, advance 4 bytes", "this is a VPLS label, advance X (I forget) bytes" looks do-able. [Note, I personally don't enjoy MPLS. It's handy when you want to pretend to have a flat network on top of a large routed network - and some WISP consultants absolutely swear by it - but my experience is that you are adding complexity for the sake of it. Routing works remarkably well.] On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS < libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > in my continued rip-van-winkle, living in the third world (california) > way, I am curious as to how y'all are managing your > ipv4 address supply and if you are deploying ipv6 to any extent? > > In all this discussion of multi-gbit fiber, my own direct experience > is that AT&T's fiber rollout had very flaky ipv6, and more and more > services (like starlink) are appearing behind cgnats, which have their > own capex and opex costs. > > I see a lot of rfc1918 being used as the operational overlay > elsewhere, tons of tunnels, also. > > -- > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: > > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666= 5607352320-FXtz > Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > _______________________________________________ > LibreQoS mailing list > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos > --0000000000003a455405ebf2324f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually had a conversation with our primary upstream= provider yesterday about IPv6 (and why
they won't provide it= to us). One of their lead engineers, once plied with beer, said that every=
time they've deployed it they get 99% of it working well and= 1% of things mysteriously
stop working, or go wonky. That was si= milar to our experience a few years ago. It mostly
helped a lot, = but chasing down the "hey, this advertises a v6 address and doesn'= t actually
support it" issues drove us crazy.

=
Right now, we don't have enough IPv4 addresses, but that'= ;s being rectified. We mostly
do CGNAT and 10.64 addresses in the= meantime, with public IPs assigned where they
are needed (mostly= through a tunnel setup to avoid subnetting waste). Tunnels are a pain,
but they work (once you chase down all of the MTU issues).

Which reminds me, I have "can we support MPLS?" o= n my crazy notes list. I know that
Preseem and similar don't = try, but we're already reading deeply enough into the ethernet
header that saying "this is an MPLS label, advance 4 bytes", &q= uot;this is a VPLS label, advance
X (I forget) bytes" looks = do-able. [Note, I personally don't enjoy MPLS. It's handy when
you want to pretend to have a flat network on top of a large routed n= etwork - and some
WISP consultants absolutely swear by it - but m= y experience is that you are adding
complexity for the sake of it= . Routing works remarkably well.]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:30 PM= Dave Taht via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
in my continued rip-van-winkle, living in = the third world (california)
way, I am curious as to how y'all are managing your
ipv4 address supply and if you are deploying ipv6 to any extent?

In all this discussion of multi-gbit fiber, my own direct experience
is that AT&T's fiber rollout had very flaky ipv6, and more and more=
services (like starlink) are appearing behind cgnats, which have their
own capex and opex costs.

I see a lot of rfc1918 being used as the operational overlay
elsewhere, tons of tunnels, also.

--
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.= linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXt= z
Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
_______________________________________________
LibreQoS mailing list
LibreQo= S@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
--0000000000003a455405ebf2324f--