What's the netblock and ASN you already have?
66.6.208.1/24, ASN is currently 11509 but I will be getting my own shortly.
Edward W. Ray
Hannigan, Martin
There is nothing about a cable modem that would normally prevent a BGP session. Nor do all the intermediate routers need to support BGP (multi-hop BGP). However, direct connections are preferred.
Your _real_ challenge is convincing Roadrunner's NOC staff to program one of their backbone routers to do a BGP session with a cable modem sub. Or, for that matter, getting them to even route a non-roadrunner IP block to a cable modem sub.
Instead you might try borrowing a bunch of old 2500s and setting up a test lab that isn't connected to actual net.
Best of luck on your CCIE.
John
A) No cable company in their right mind is going to speak BGP to a
$29.95/mo residential customer, period.
B) The answer to his question about "I don't know if what I'm doing will
violate the AUP or not" is, when in doubt the answer is YES. No sane
comapny is going to let this guy near bgp with a 10ft pole after that
statement, but then again no sane people read nanog any more I suspect.
C) If this guy actually had a CCIE, I would encourage Cisco to quickly
implement a SWAT team responsible for reposessing the CCIE medals of
anyone caught using the words "Class C" for a /24 out of 66. space.
D) Please do not feed the trolls. 
RAS,
I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase "class C" more or less
interchangably with "/24" - I suspect a lot of us still do that...
I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase "class C"
more or less interchangably with "/24" - I suspect a lot of us
still do that...
well, now you can do it for /64s
and class B can be /48s (or is it /56s?)
and class A can be /32s
"we have all been here before" -- csny
except i guess some of us either haven't or have
forgotten.
randy
Well, on behalf of the entire networking community, I hereby ask you to
stop it.
It's just a bad habit, and while you may know exactly what it means and
doesn't mean, it does nothing but confuse new people about how and why
classless routing works. It is absolutely absurd that so many people still
teach classful routing FIRST to new students in this day and age, and then
approach classless routing like it is something new and different which
should be considered as an afterthought.
Just remember, the people you confuse today are the ones who are going to
be announcing their legacy erm "class B" allocations as /24s tomorrow,
because they don't know any better.
er.. would this be a poor characterization of the IPv6 addressing
architecture which is encouraged by the IETF and the various RIR
members?
class A == /32
class B == /48
class C == /56
hostroute == /64
(and just think of all that spam than can originate from all those
"loose" IP addresses in that /64 for your local SMTP server!!! Yummy)
-- Oat Willie
actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
...which makes the /32s-and-shorter that everybody's actually getting
double-plus-As, or what?
-Bill
A class A gives you 16 bits to enumerate 8 bit subnets. If you start from the premise that all subnets are 8 bits (dubious, but I have heard it asserted) in IPv4, and that all subnets in IPv6 are 16 bits (again dubious, given the recent suggestion of a /56 allocation to an edge network), a /48 is the counterpart of a class A. We just have a lot more of them.
All of which seems a little twisted to me. While I think /32, /48, /56, and /64 are reasonable prefix lengths for what they are proposed for, I have this feeling of early fossilization when it doesn't necessarily make sense.
Yeah, that's what seems important to me here... I mean, I've lived
through the whole classful thing once... I'm still not clear why there
are people who want to do it again.
-Bill
* fred@cisco.com (Fred Baker) [Thu 03 Nov 2005, 01:17 CET]:
A class A gives you 16 bits to enumerate 8 bit subnets. If you start
You've been reading too much Cisco Press material.
All a "Class A" gives you today is filthy looks, and people who know better shake their heads, feeling sorry for you.
The operational world left classful IPv4 addressing behind us, over a decade ago.
Perhaps it's time that certain vendors did the same, in their literature and certification programmes.
Recycling outdated terms to apply to new concepts ("Class C" to represent a /24 in the CIDR IPv4 world, or a /48 or whatever in IPv6) is a folly that can only lead to suffering.
-- Niels.
A class A gives you 16 bits to enumerate 8 bit subnets. If you start
from the premise that all subnets are 8 bits (dubious, but I have
heard it asserted) in IPv4,
not according to my view of the internet..
/8: 18 /9: 5 /10: 8 /11: 17 /12: 79 /13: 179 /14: 335 /15: 651 /16: 8553
/17: 2855 /18: 4793 /19: 10791 /20: 11877 /21: 9990 /22: 13168 /23: 14299
/24: 93293
and that all subnets in IPv6 are 16 bits > (again dubious, given the recent
suggestion of a /56 allocation to an edge network), a /48 is the counterpart
of a class A. We just have a lot more of them.
well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way
All of which seems a little twisted to me.
you think? 
While I think /32, /48, / 56, and /64 are reasonable prefix lengths for what
they are proposed for, I have this feeling of early fossilization when it
doesn't necessarily make sense.
classes are bad. but recognise v6 is a bit different, /48 or /56 is the per site
bit which is not comparable to v4. then /32 is is largest generally accepted
prefix for bgp. this suggests anything can happen from 0-32 in bgp and anything
can happen in provider igp for 32-48 or 32-56 and again anything in end user igp
for 48/56-128
repeat 3 times, twice daily. classes are bad, v6 is not v4
Steve
Bill Woodcock wrote:
> While I think /32, /48, /56, and /64 are reasonable prefix lengths > for what they are proposed for, I have this feeling of early > fossilization when it doesn't necessarily make sense.
Yeah, that's what seems important to me here... I mean, I've lived through the whole classful thing once... I'm still not clear why there are people who want to do it again.
It's not quite the same as classful addressing in IPv4. There is no
definition of prefix length by address range. At the RIR->ISP level
It is actually CIDR with a minimum allocation size that intentionally
covers 95+% of applicants. Shorter allocations of various sizes are
made based on justification. An extra 1-3 bits is even reserved around
each allocation for future growth.
The same thing applies to End sites. You can get a /47 or shorter
with justification. It's might be rare but it is possible.
I think the goal was to avoid making multiple non-aggregatable
allocations as is done with IPv4. An alternative would be to allocate
based on initial need but still reserve a much larger prefix for
future growth. This would avoid the illusion of fixed sizes and carry
less risk of unused space. Is that worth the extra RIR effort? Maybe,
maybe not.
- Kevin
keep them confused, then they can't join 'the club'...
actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
(someone might already have asked this, but...) why /48? Perhaps it's the
convenience of it all, but I was pretty much willing to 'accept' the
listing as bill/randy had laid it out (accept the wording i suppose)
> > hostroute == /64
> >
> > (and just think of all that spam than can originate from all those
> > "loose" IP addresses in that /64 for your local SMTP server!!! Yummy)
> >
> > -- Oat Willie
ok... so is it -just- me that gets the willies thinking of the
2x64-1 available IPv6 addresses that can be forged as source
addresses for spam origination? i REALLY want to have a tidy
way of only announcing -EXACTLY- what is being used (ok, modulo
one or two adjacent numbers) and not some architecturally
constrained "addressing plan" that has to conserve elsewhere.
(yeah, and my co-bills want ponies)
--bill
but, but, but... ipv6 is more SECURE! I'm really not sure I understand
why my LAN has to have more available ip space than the current Internet,
but boy, it sure makes it easy to spam^H^H^H^Hfind available addresses!
I view the 48/56/64 boundaries about like Woody does (and I suspect Mr.
Narkins and Mr. Bush) they are in the documentation so people use them,
it's not particularly a great idea, but it is an idea. (Oh, and some
equipment won't do the lovely autoconfig unless you have a /64, someone
should open a bug report on that)
I was pretty much willing to 'accept' the listing as bill/randy
had laid it out (accept the wording i suppose)
actually, bill and i disagreed. this is not unusual
class A == /32
class B == /48
class C == /56
hostroute == /64
and i:
I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase "class C"
more or less interchangably with "/24" - I suspect a lot of us
still do that...well, now you can do it for /64s
and class B can be /48s (or is it /56s?)
and class A can be /32s
as, in the truely classful days, a lan was a C == /24, i'll
stick to my guns for the moment that a new C is a /64 and so
forth.
as there is no emoticon for sarcasm, the naive should know
that i (and maybe bill) draw this comparison to point out
that, by codifying such boundaries in technology and policy,
we're making the same old mistakes again.
randy