[CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

david
Folks

The price point of Intel's NUC unit makes it attractive to use as a
server that doesn't have significant computational load.  In my
environment, a USB connected hard-drive could provide all the storage
needed.  I wonder if anyone has had experience with it, and can answer:

1)  Does Centos6 and/or Centos7 install from a USB connected optical
drive? or a USB flash drive?  I'd prefer to do a NetInstall.

If the answer is essentially no, there's no point in continuing.

2) Is the Ethernet connection supported by NetInstall and the subsequent OS?

3) Is it possible to add an additional NIC for possible use as a home
router/gateway?  If not internally, then via a USB connected NIC?

Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

David
San Francisco

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

Digimer-2
On 08/01/15 02:32 PM, david wrote:

> Folks
>
> The price point of Intel's NUC unit makes it attractive to use as a
> server that doesn't have significant computational load.  In my
> environment, a USB connected hard-drive could provide all the storage
> needed.  I wonder if anyone has had experience with it, and can answer:
>
> 1)  Does Centos6 and/or Centos7 install from a USB connected optical
> drive? or a USB flash drive?  I'd prefer to do a NetInstall.
>
> If the answer is essentially no, there's no point in continuing.
>
> 2) Is the Ethernet connection supported by NetInstall and the subsequent
> OS?
>
> 3) Is it possible to add an additional NIC for possible use as a home
> router/gateway?  If not internally, then via a USB connected NIC?
>
> Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.
>
> David
> San Francisco

I installed CentOS 7 on a pair of NUCs using a PXE server, but I see no
reason why a USB DVD wouldn't be a problem. The onboard wired connection
works flawlessly, the wireless is an optional card so it depends what
you buy. The Intel wifi card I got worked without hassle.

USB NICs will be fine, I've used the Apple USB2->100Mbps adapters for
RHEL 6 and they "just work". I've used the Siig USB3->gbit adapters and
they "just work" in Fedora, but needed the drivers installed for EL6
(didn't try EL7, I expect they'd just work there).

I would get the model NUC with 2.5" drive and go that route, much harder
to accidentally known an internal drive out.

--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

John R Pierce
In reply to this post by david
On 1/8/2015 11:32 AM, david wrote:
> The price point of Intel's NUC unit makes it attractive to use as a
> server that doesn't have significant computational load.  In my
> environment, a USB connected hard-drive could provide all the storage
> needed.  I wonder if anyone has had experience with it, and can answer:
>

IMHO, its totally unsuitable as a server, there are many better choices.

A) there's no ECC, and servers tend to keep data in memory for a long
time.  soft bit errors in gigabytes of memory are a more frequent
occurance than you might think.  With a file server, that corrupt data
stands a good chance of ending up back on disk, where it becomes
permanent silent data corruption.

B) a single USB drive is a very poor choice for any sort of server,
there's no redundancy whatsoever.  When (not if) that drive croaks, you
lose everything.

something like an HP Microserver is a much better choice for a SOHO
server.   Been running one of the older N40L models here for 2+ years,
running FreeNAS, although it certainly can run CentOS. supports 8 or
16GB ram, with ECC, and has 4 SATA drive bays.  Mine has 4x3TB in raidz
(like raid5) for 7.3TiB total usable storage, I have no trouble reading
or writing at near gigE speeds.

Another good choice would be one of the mini-ITX "Avoton"/"Rangley" Atom
C2xxx family of boards (don't let the 'Atom' branding fool you, these
are low power high performance server processors).  These have 2-4-8
cores at 1.6-2.4ghz, support ECC RAM up to 32GB, and have 6+ SATA ports
and 4 gigE ports onboard.  A variety of people make mini-ITX chassis
that hold 2-4 disks, and a few with 6-8.

> ...
> 3) Is it possible to add an additional NIC for possible use as a home
> router/gateway?  If not internally, then via a USB connected NIC?

for a home gateway/router, I would suggest looking into an APU1D4, such
as are sold by Netgate.    This little 6x6" board draws less than 10
watts TOTAL ACTIVE, has 3 GIgE ports and a dual core 1Ghz CPU with 4GB
ram, it has SD card slot, miniSATA slot (for a SSD), and 2 miniPCI-E
slots (for expansion boards such as wifi), its fanless (convection
cooled via a heat spreader to the aluminum case, and basically rocks.

I'm using one with pfSense (a freeBSD based firewall distribution) and
its very slick.    routing tons of connections (bittorrent) to my 30Mbps
internet, it uses only 3-5% of its CPU, I've been told it can handle AES
IPSEC vpns up to about 100Mbps, and 400-500Mbps simple NAT routing.

--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

david
At 01:54 PM 1/8/2015, John R Pierce wrote:

>On 1/8/2015 11:32 AM, david wrote:
>>The price point of Intel's NUC unit makes it attractive to use as a
>>server that doesn't have significant computational load.  In my
>>environment, a USB connected hard-drive could provide all the
>>storage needed.  I wonder if anyone has had experience with it, and can answer:
>
>IMHO, its totally unsuitable as a server, there are many better choices.
>
>A) there's no ECC, and servers tend to keep data in memory for a
>long time.  soft bit errors in gigabytes of memory are a more
>frequent occurance than you might think.  With a file server, that
>corrupt data stands a good chance of ending up back on disk, where
>it becomes permanent silent data corruption.
>
>B) a single USB drive is a very poor choice for any sort of server,
>there's no redundancy whatsoever.  When (not if) that drive croaks,
>you lose everything.
>
>something like an HP Microserver is a much better choice for a SOHO
>server.   Been running one of the older N40L models here for 2+
>years, running FreeNAS, although it certainly can run CentOS.
>supports 8 or 16GB ram, with ECC, and has 4 SATA drive bays.  Mine
>has 4x3TB in raidz (like raid5) for 7.3TiB total usable storage, I
>have no trouble reading or writing at near gigE speeds.
>
>Another good choice would be one of the mini-ITX "Avoton"/"Rangley"
>Atom C2xxx family of boards (don't let the 'Atom' branding fool you,
>these are low power high performance server processors).  These have
>2-4-8 cores at 1.6-2.4ghz, support ECC RAM up to 32GB, and have 6+
>SATA ports and 4 gigE ports onboard.  A variety of people make
>mini-ITX chassis that hold 2-4 disks, and a few with 6-8.
>
>>...
>>3) Is it possible to add an additional NIC for possible use as a
>>home router/gateway?  If not internally, then via a USB connected NIC?
>
>for a home gateway/router, I would suggest looking into an APU1D4,
>such as are sold by Netgate.    This little 6x6" board draws less
>than 10 watts TOTAL ACTIVE, has 3 GIgE ports and a dual core 1Ghz
>CPU with 4GB ram, it has SD card slot, miniSATA slot (for a SSD),
>and 2 miniPCI-E slots (for expansion boards such as wifi), its
>fanless (convection cooled via a heat spreader to the aluminum case,
>and basically rocks.
>
>I'm using one with pfSense (a freeBSD based firewall distribution)
>and its very slick.    routing tons of connections (bittorrent) to
>my 30Mbps internet, it uses only 3-5% of its CPU, I've been told it
>can handle AES IPSEC vpns up to about 100Mbps, and 400-500Mbps
>simple NAT routing.
>
>--
>john r pierce                                      37N 122W
>somewhere on the middle of the left coast

John
Thanks for your comments.  In the particular application, I used the
word "server" only in the sense that GUI is only rarely used, and CPU
speed isn't an issue.  The data the server holds has other "primary"
copies elsewhere, so if some corruption or damage occurs, it can be
restored within acceptable time.  Thus, I am not interested in ECC
memory or RAID for this situation, although I do appreciate the need
for servers with mission-critical data.  As a former employee of
Tandem Computers, mirroring, backup, check-everything, dual
everything is in my blood.

David

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

Valeri Galtsev

On Thu, January 8, 2015 5:40 pm, david wrote:

> At 01:54 PM 1/8/2015, John R Pierce wrote:
>>On 1/8/2015 11:32 AM, david wrote:
>>>The price point of Intel's NUC unit makes it attractive to use as a
>>>server that doesn't have significant computational load.  In my
>>>environment, a USB connected hard-drive could provide all the
>>>storage needed.  I wonder if anyone has had experience with it, and can
>>> answer:
>>
>>IMHO, its totally unsuitable as a server, there are many better choices.
>>
>>A) there's no ECC, and servers tend to keep data in memory for a
>>long time.  soft bit errors in gigabytes of memory are a more
>>frequent occurance than you might think.  With a file server, that
>>corrupt data stands a good chance of ending up back on disk, where
>>it becomes permanent silent data corruption.
>>
>>B) a single USB drive is a very poor choice for any sort of server,
>>there's no redundancy whatsoever.  When (not if) that drive croaks,
>>you lose everything.
>>
>>something like an HP Microserver is a much better choice for a SOHO
>>server.   Been running one of the older N40L models here for 2+
>>years, running FreeNAS, although it certainly can run CentOS.
>>supports 8 or 16GB ram, with ECC, and has 4 SATA drive bays.  Mine
>>has 4x3TB in raidz (like raid5) for 7.3TiB total usable storage, I
>>have no trouble reading or writing at near gigE speeds.
>>
>>Another good choice would be one of the mini-ITX "Avoton"/"Rangley"
>>Atom C2xxx family of boards (don't let the 'Atom' branding fool you,
>>these are low power high performance server processors).  These have
>>2-4-8 cores at 1.6-2.4ghz, support ECC RAM up to 32GB, and have 6+
>>SATA ports and 4 gigE ports onboard.  A variety of people make
>>mini-ITX chassis that hold 2-4 disks, and a few with 6-8.
>>
>>>...
>>>3) Is it possible to add an additional NIC for possible use as a
>>>home router/gateway?  If not internally, then via a USB connected NIC?
>>
>>for a home gateway/router, I would suggest looking into an APU1D4,
>>such as are sold by Netgate.    This little 6x6" board draws less
>>than 10 watts TOTAL ACTIVE, has 3 GIgE ports and a dual core 1Ghz
>>CPU with 4GB ram, it has SD card slot, miniSATA slot (for a SSD),
>>and 2 miniPCI-E slots (for expansion boards such as wifi), its
>>fanless (convection cooled via a heat spreader to the aluminum case,
>>and basically rocks.
>>
>>I'm using one with pfSense (a freeBSD based firewall distribution)
>>and its very slick.    routing tons of connections (bittorrent) to
>>my 30Mbps internet, it uses only 3-5% of its CPU, I've been told it
>>can handle AES IPSEC vpns up to about 100Mbps, and 400-500Mbps
>>simple NAT routing.
>>
>>--
>>john r pierce                                      37N 122W
>>somewhere on the middle of the left coast
>
> John
> Thanks for your comments.  In the particular application, I used the
> word "server" only in the sense that GUI is only rarely used, and CPU
> speed isn't an issue.  The data the server holds has other "primary"
> copies elsewhere, so if some corruption or damage occurs, it can be
> restored within acceptable time.  Thus, I am not interested in ECC
> memory or RAID for this situation, although I do appreciate the need
> for servers with mission-critical data.  As a former employee of
> Tandem Computers, mirroring, backup, check-everything, dual
> everything is in my blood.
>

Still, John, thanks for your brilliant comments (I bet there are many
people for whom they are very instructive), and for pointers to small
footprint/ small consumption units, - these are particularly interesting
for me!

Valeri

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

John R Pierce
In reply to this post by david
On 1/8/2015 3:40 PM, david wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.  In the particular application, I used the
> word "server" only in the sense that GUI is only rarely used, and CPU
> speed isn't an issue.  The data the server holds has other "primary"
> copies elsewhere, so if some corruption or damage occurs, it can be
> restored within acceptable time.  Thus, I am not interested in ECC
> memory or RAID for this situation, although I do appreciate the need
> for servers with mission-critical data.  As a former employee of
> Tandem Computers, mirroring, backup, check-everything, dual everything
> is in my blood.

the problem with non-ECC memory is, you never KNOW when data corruption
has happened.   Making life more complicated, the statistical rate of
these soft bit errors varies widely from machine to machine as a
significant cause is background radioactivity, and other components of
the system such as the chassis materials can contribute to this.   I've
seen numbers ranging from a few errors per century per gigabyte to a few
per HOUR per gigabyte.    without ECC, you simply don't know this has
happened, unless the flipped bit happens to be in some code in a place
and position where it causes the code to crash, or you happen to notice
corruption, such as a block decode error while playing a video (which,
for formats like mpeg/mp2/mp4 can cause video block glitches for several
seconds until a new I-frame restores the whole picture).

I really wish the PC industry made ECC the norm even for desktop
workstations.  it only adds 12% to the memory cost (9 bits instead of 8
bits per byte, or 72 instead of 64 per word), and the memory cost is
typically about a 10th of the total system price, such that the cost of
ECC would only be 1% or so....    but since ECC is 'special server only'
stuff, it costs a premium far above and beyond that 12%.



--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

Nux!
In reply to this post by david
Have EL7 working great on a DN2820FYKH; everything works including remote control.
Had to use the Elrepo kernel-ml to get graphics working properly though, also had to update the BIOS to get rid of some bugs.
You may not encounter any of the above issues since you are running it headless.

HTH
Lucian

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

----- Original Message -----
> From: "david" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 January, 2015 19:32:17
> Subject: [CentOS] Intel NUC? Any experience

> Folks
>
> The price point of Intel's NUC unit makes it attractive to use as a
> server that doesn't have significant computational load.  In my
> environment, a USB connected hard-drive could provide all the storage
> needed.  I wonder if anyone has had experience with it, and can answer:
>
> 1)  Does Centos6 and/or Centos7 install from a USB connected optical
> drive? or a USB flash drive?  I'd prefer to do a NetInstall.
>
> If the answer is essentially no, there's no point in continuing.
>
> 2) Is the Ethernet connection supported by NetInstall and the subsequent OS?
>
> 3) Is it possible to add an additional NIC for possible use as a home
> router/gateway?  If not internally, then via a USB connected NIC?
>
> Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.
>
> David
> San Francisco
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

F. Mendez
In reply to this post by Digimer-2
Hello.

It happens that at the company I'm working decided to start migration of
IPs tech.

So they got a /48 block. I were trying to add it with:

ifcfg-eth0-range1 (0 is already in use with IPv4 range):

IPV6ADDR_START=xxxx
IPV6ADDR_END=xxxx
CLONENUM_START=0

But of course I am assuming that like in IPv4 IPADDR_START/END is
implemented.

Please give some guidance as I need this to done already and the hole
/48 must be available and virtualized.


Thanks.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

Gordon Messmer-2
On 01/10/2015 10:10 AM, F. Mendez wrote:
>
> But of course I am assuming that like in IPv4 IPADDR_START/END is
> implemented.

I don't think so.  The START and END bits of ifup-aliases appear to be
v4 specific.

> Please give some guidance as I need this to done already and the hole
> /48 must be available and virtualized.

Well, the whole network will be available as long as you have an active
address on a node that's capable of acting as a router.  I'm not sure
what you mean by virtualized, though.

https://access.redhat.com/solutions/347693
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

F. Mendez
El 10/01/2015 a las 03:40 p.m., Gordon Messmer escribió:

> On 01/10/2015 10:10 AM, F. Mendez wrote:
>>
>> But of course I am assuming that like in IPv4 IPADDR_START/END is
>> implemented.
>
> I don't think so.  The START and END bits of ifup-aliases appear to be
> v4 specific.
>
>> Please give some guidance as I need this to done already and the hole
>> /48 must be available and virtualized.
>
> Well, the whole network will be available as long as you have an
> active address on a node that's capable of acting as a router. I'm not
> sure what you mean by virtualized, though.
>
> https://access.redhat.com/solutions/347693
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
Hello. Thanks for your reply.


Currently we have a /26 range of IPv4. So we have eth0:1...eth0:59

We need that same with IPv6 since we have a /48 and we need to have all
IPv6s available for usage.

I tried to use same ifcfg-eth0-range0 same config by adding:
IPV6ADDR_START= which seems not to work for this. None IPADDR_START too.

We need a simple way to have our virtual eth's with IPv6 all the range
available.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

John R Pierce
On 1/10/2015 12:56 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
> We need that same with IPv6 since we have a /48 and we need to have
> all IPv6s available for usage.

Do you realize that a ipv6 /48 is a septillion IP addresses?   thats
1,208,925,819,614,629,200,000,000 individual IPs ?

Or, its 65536 /64 subnets of  18,446,744,073,709,552,000 hosts each.



--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

Mike Mohr
In reply to this post by F. Mendez
I'm not sure how you plan to manage your /48, but this is how I've seen it
done in the past:

1) You are given a single IPv6 address (a /128) for your Internet-facing
router.  You are expected to add this address to your untrusted interface.
You are also given the address of a router at your ISP which is your IPv6
default route.

2) You are also given a block of addresses.  In my case this case a /64,
although it should work for any size prefix.  You are expected to hand
these addresses out on your trusted interface via either DHCPv6 or SLAAC
(depending on your preference).  Assign one of the addresses in the block
to your router's LAN interface and supply this as the default route for
your LAN hosts.

Good luck.
On Jan 10, 2015 10:10 AM, "F. Mendez" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello.
>
> It happens that at the company I'm working decided to start migration of
> IPs tech.
>
> So they got a /48 block. I were trying to add it with:
>
> ifcfg-eth0-range1 (0 is already in use with IPv4 range):
>
> IPV6ADDR_START=xxxx
> IPV6ADDR_END=xxxx
> CLONENUM_START=0
>
> But of course I am assuming that like in IPv4 IPADDR_START/END is
> implemented.
>
> Please give some guidance as I need this to done already and the hole /48
> must be available and virtualized.
>
>
> Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

Gordon Messmer-2
In reply to this post by F. Mendez
On 01/10/2015 12:56 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
> Currently we have a /26 range of IPv4. So we have eth0:1...eth0:59

Interface aliases are deprecated, IIRC.  An interface can have multiple
addresses in V4 or V6 managed with the "ip" tool rather than "ifconfig."

> We need that same with IPv6 since we have a /48 and we need to have all
> IPv6s available for usage.

If you need additional IPs for HTTPS virtual hosts or something like
that, it looks like you can use IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES in the ifcfg file.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

F. Mendez
In reply to this post by John R Pierce
El 10/01/2015 a las 04:03 p.m., John R Pierce escribió:

> On 1/10/2015 12:56 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
>> We need that same with IPv6 since we have a /48 and we need to have
>> all IPv6s available for usage.
>
> Do you realize that a ipv6 /48 is a septillion IP addresses? thats
> 1,208,925,819,614,629,200,000,000 individual IPs ?
>
> Or, its 65536 /64 subnets of  18,446,744,073,709,552,000 hosts each.
>
>
>
Hello. Yes I confirm...its a /48 (this guys are crazy here at my work...).
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

Gordon Messmer-2
On 01/10/2015 08:10 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
> Hello. Yes I confirm...its a /48 (this guys are crazy here at my work...).

It's not crazy, that's the standard deployment for a building.  It's
almost certainly not possible to use all of the addresses in such a
space, but that's the point.  IPv6 is intended to eliminate address
scarcity.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

John R Pierce
In reply to this post by F. Mendez
On 1/10/2015 8:10 PM, F. Mendez wrote:

> El 10/01/2015 a las 04:03 p.m., John R Pierce escribió:
>> On 1/10/2015 12:56 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
>>> We need that same with IPv6 since we have a /48 and we need to have
>>> all IPv6s available for usage.
>>
>> Do you realize that a ipv6 /48 is a septillion IP addresses? thats
>> 1,208,925,819,614,629,200,000,000 individual IPs ?
>>
>> Or, its 65536 /64 subnets of  18,446,744,073,709,552,000 hosts each.
>>
>>
>>
> Hello. Yes I confirm...its a /48 (this guys are crazy here at my
> work...).

so what is it you want to do with these 1.2 septillion IP addresses?  
you certainly can't assign them all to one system, there's not that many
file handles, nor can one system have anywheres remotely close to that
many vhosts.



--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

John R Pierce
In reply to this post by Gordon Messmer-2
On 1/10/2015 8:38 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 01/10/2015 08:10 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
>> Hello. Yes I confirm...its a /48 (this guys are crazy here at my
>> work...).
>
> It's not crazy, that's the standard deployment for a building. It's
> almost certainly not possible to use all of the addresses in such a
> space, but that's the point.  IPv6 is intended to eliminate address
> scarcity.

yes, but whats crazy is the OP's original request, he apparently thinks
he wants a lan alias on every single IP....

> It happens that at the company I'm working decided to start migration
> of IPs tech.
>
> So they got a /48 block. I were trying to add it with:
>
> ifcfg-eth0-range1 (0 is already in use with IPv4 range):
>
> IPV6ADDR_START=xxxx
> IPV6ADDR_END=xxxx
> CLONENUM_START=0
>
> But of course I am assuming that like in IPv4 IPADDR_START/END is
> implemented.
>
> Please give some guidance as I need this to done already and the hole
> /48 must be available and virtualized.




--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

F. Mendez
El 11/01/2015 a las 12:10 a.m., John R Pierce escribió:

> On 1/10/2015 8:38 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 01/10/2015 08:10 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
>>> Hello. Yes I confirm...its a /48 (this guys are crazy here at my
>>> work...).
>>
>> It's not crazy, that's the standard deployment for a building. It's
>> almost certainly not possible to use all of the addresses in such a
>> space, but that's the point.  IPv6 is intended to eliminate address
>> scarcity.
>
> yes, but whats crazy is the OP's original request, he apparently
> thinks he wants a lan alias on every single IP....
>
>> It happens that at the company I'm working decided to start migration
>> of IPs tech.
>>
>> So they got a /48 block. I were trying to add it with:
>>
>> ifcfg-eth0-range1 (0 is already in use with IPv4 range):
>>
>> IPV6ADDR_START=xxxx
>> IPV6ADDR_END=xxxx
>> CLONENUM_START=0
>>
>> But of course I am assuming that like in IPv4 IPADDR_START/END is
>> implemented.
>>
>> Please give some guidance as I need this to done already and the hole
>> /48 must be available and virtualized.
>
>
>
>
Well I was trying to figure out a simple way to have it done. As it
works on IPv4 I thought to give it a try :)

Hopefully you guys that have more expertice on this may share a better
solution.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

F. Mendez
In reply to this post by John R Pierce
El 10/01/2015 a las 11:41 p.m., John R Pierce escribió:

> On 1/10/2015 8:10 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
>> El 10/01/2015 a las 04:03 p.m., John R Pierce escribió:
>>> On 1/10/2015 12:56 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
>>>> We need that same with IPv6 since we have a /48 and we need to have
>>>> all IPv6s available for usage.
>>>
>>> Do you realize that a ipv6 /48 is a septillion IP addresses? thats
>>> 1,208,925,819,614,629,200,000,000 individual IPs ?
>>>
>>> Or, its 65536 /64 subnets of  18,446,744,073,709,552,000 hosts each.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hello. Yes I confirm...its a /48 (this guys are crazy here at my
>> work...).
>
> so what is it you want to do with these 1.2 septillion IP addresses?  
> you certainly can't assign them all to one system, there's not that
> many file handles, nor can one system have anywheres remotely close to
> that many vhosts.
>
>
>
Yup. It is actually just a way to figure out how to handle this with
easy. But this will be use for a wide spread implementation.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block

John R Pierce
On 1/10/2015 9:19 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
> Yup. It is actually just a way to figure out how to handle this with
> easy. But this will be use for a wide spread implementation.


how to handle what?  you've never explained what you're trying to do,
except in the most vague terms.



--
john r pierce                                      37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
12