<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03.09.2014 г. 22:39 ч., Stefan
Dimitrov wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54076E6F.7040905@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/02/2014 11:45 AM, Ivan Popov
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:540583B7.70305@evolink.com" type="cite">On
02.09.2014 г. 10:50 ч., Marian Marinov wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- <br>
Hash: SHA1 <br>
<br>
Hi guys, <br>
I'm preparing to configure my Ripe Atlas Anchor in Sofia and I
wish to have both IPv4 and IPv6 for it. <br>
<br>
Since I don't have much experience with IPv6 I would like to
ask a few questions :) <br>
<br>
- - If I want to use a /64 from my RIPE provided IPv6
addresses, do I need to give another /64 to my uplink ISP for
<br>
transport? <br>
<br>
- - I have received /64 from my ISP but I did not receive any
transport IPs. Is this normal? <br>
<br>
<br>
Marian <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
It depends... as usual <br>
By RIPE's recommendations /64 IPv6 Networks should be assigned
to end users and by definition end users should not deal with
BGP, routers and other networking mumbo-jumbo's <br>
I don't know details about your current setup with ISP but it's
probably follows well known logic: 1'st address is default
gateway so you must just assign IPv6 address to end station and
point it to the "default gateway". ISP will advertise aggregated
prefixes (incl. your /64) to entire world <br>
<br>
About IPv6 p2p links we can refer to RFC6164 (<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164</a>)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
How to use 127-bit IPv6 prefixes (/127)<br>
</blockquote>
By the same way as IPv4 /31 p2p
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3021</a>)... MTEL uses that convention a
lot in their networks. <br>
Personally, I don't like it. Using IPv6 /126 and IPv4 /30 for p2p is
more handy and scalable and a bit address wasting ofcourse :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54076E6F.7040905@gmail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote cite="mid:540583B7.70305@evolink.com" type="cite"> <br>
Probably this is not your case but ... KISS forever! :) <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Nog mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nog@nog.bg">Nog@nog.bg</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ludost.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nog">http://lists.ludost.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Nog mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nog@nog.bg">Nog@nog.bg</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ludost.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nog">http://lists.ludost.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>