Hemant, On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:21 MDT, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Steinar, > > -----Original Message----- > From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no] > Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:13 PM > To: adur...@juniper.net > Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); ipv6@ietf.org; > dtha...@wollive.windowsmedia.com.akadns.net > Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78 > >> If the complexity can be *hidden* such that the operator configures >> the /127 link "as usual", this might be okay. If the operator needs >> to perform extra configuration to get the /127 link working, probably >> not. > > Great thought. Indeed the off-link model functionality I and Dave Thaler > speak of for getting around the anycast issue with use of a /127 is > "hidden". The functionality is an internal implementation of the > router. The external user only sees the fact that when the user > configured a /127 on the router interface, the router does not jump to > invoking anycast data forwarding mode.
We don't statically configure, (nor would we even consider doing so), default routes or want "hidden" default routes in our Core routers. If those default routes are installed into the FIB of the routers, (intentionally or accidentally during "implementation" of your proposal), it would have substantial negative repercussions on our operations, namely traffic forwarding loops (whee!) in our network that would likely cause congestion, etc. Furthermore, there are way too many 'hidden' configurations/nuances inside every router vendor's implementation that I don't want to keep track of another one ... Please, as an operator, I really just want IPv6 /127's to be as KISS as /31's are in IPv4. -shane > The SP's from Japan I spoke with > at the IETF 78 told me they want to future-proof their network. They > are working fine right now with /127 on their Cisco and Juniper routers. > But they say, what if router vendors in future change their code to > start anycast processing with a /127 configured. Also they were burnt > recently when Linux changed its /127 implementation to kick of anycast > processing - apparently some small router company was using this Linux > code. > > Hemant > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
