Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
Bob Hinden wrote: It was also interesting to open the Mac network control pannel, enable my Airport (WLAN) interface, and see the IPv6 global address appear almost instantaneously and in many case having to wait many seconds to minutes for DHCP provided IPv4 address to appear. Any chance this was merely due to a difference in scaling, with IPv4 DHCP usage being large-scale and IPv6 being small? I suppose the more constructive way to ask this is: Does anyone know why one worked better than the other? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On 2-aug-2007, at 21:17, Dave Crocker wrote: It was also interesting to open the Mac network control pannel, enable my Airport (WLAN) interface, and see the IPv6 global address appear almost instantaneously and in many case having to wait many seconds to minutes for DHCP provided IPv4 address to appear. Any chance this was merely due to a difference in scaling, with IPv4 DHCP usage being large-scale and IPv6 being small? I suppose the more constructive way to ask this is: Does anyone know why one worked better than the other? I don't think there was any IPv6 DHCP, and if there was, most hosts wouldn't have used it because they don't implement it. The advantage of stateless autoconf over DHCP is that with stateless autoconf, a singe router advertisement multicast to all IPv6 hosts can provide an unlimited number of hosts with address information (the hosts still need to do duplicate address detection, but since no reply means success it's hard to fail here) so it's eminently more scalable than DHCP. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On Jul 31, 2007, at 6:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: And, while I'm picking on DHCP because I personally had more problems with it, I see IPv6 authconfig as being exactly the same issue: we are telling the world that these things work and they should be using them; if we can't make them work for our own meetings... Whether one regards IPv6 as ready for prime-time depends upon location. IPv6 appears to represent a metric measurement in the only industrially developed nation, despite a 1975 act of Congress, still is using fahrenheit, ounce, pound, inch, feet, and mile. There will always be problems offering an excuse not to adopt change, even when the rest of world has. Oddly, a 2x4 is neither, but might be required to promote change. -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
A good start would be explaining what exactly went wrong with the DHCP server(s) this time. We have a problem and we're working on it is not all that helpful. I wasn't directly involved in debugging this, but this is what I gathered from later discussions: The bottom line seemed to be a DHCP server that was configured to use DNS UPDATE combined with a DNS server that was configured to refuse DNS UPDATE. The DHCP server started out working OK, but apparently had more and more threads working on sending updates to the DNS server and started to fail to be able to usefully send DHCP responses. After a restart, it would serve fine for a while and then bog down again. Each tweak to the configuration would seem to fix the problem since the associated restart would cause service to be zippy again for a while. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: ... The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It is a question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had all this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still unusable 60% of the time. I had no problem at all because the IPv6 path didn't rely on the failing DHCP service. ;) That said, several of us did notice that the local DNS servers did not have any records, so likely they did not have any IPv6 configured either. Even if they did, we would need to finalize the work to put the DNS address in the RA to completely avoid the need for DHCP for those that rely on local configuration. Tony ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On Aug 1, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Tony Hain wrote: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: ... The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It is a question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had all this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still unusable 60% of the time. I had no problem at all because the IPv6 path didn't rely on the failing DHCP service. ;) That said, several of us did notice that the local DNS servers did not have any records, so likely they did not have any IPv6 configured either. Even if they did, we would need to finalize the work to put the DNS address in the RA to completely avoid the need for DHCP for those that rely on local configuration. thats why i like the bonjour idea;) http://www.dns-sd.org/ServerTestSetup.html marcM. Tony -- Imagination is more important than Knowledge http://www.braustelle.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
--On Tuesday, 31 July, 2007 15:40 -0700 Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: ... The poor network infrastructure is not only a question of the links. It is a question of having a good or bad network, like the problem that we had all this week with the DHCP. Having a good link the network was still unusable 60% of the time. I had no problem at all because the IPv6 path didn't rely on the failing DHCP service. ;) ... Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both * get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly, with and without local/auto config. * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). and have both of those working seamlessly no later than Sunday afternoon of the meeting. If we can't do that, we should be very seriously reviewing our protocols and specifications: that sort of thing shouldn't be, in any sense, an experiment at this stage. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
On 1-aug-2007, at 0:59, John C Klensin wrote: Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both * get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly, with and without local/auto config. IPv6 worked pretty well this time, although still ~60 ms (1.5x) slower than IPv4. * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). A good start would be explaining what exactly went wrong with the DHCP server(s) this time. We have a problem and we're working on it is not all that helpful. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
John, Almost independent of the IPv6 autoconfig issues, I find it deeply troubling that we seem to be unable to both * get the ducks lined up to run IPv6 fully and smoothly, with and without local/auto config. * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). and have both of those working seamlessly no later than Sunday afternoon of the meeting. Agreed. In my case, I found the IPv6 support at IETF69 better than most past IETF meetings. It was also interesting to open the Mac network control pannel, enable my Airport (WLAN) interface, and see the IPv6 global address appear almost instantaneously and in many case having to wait many seconds to minutes for DHCP provided IPv4 address to appear. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: DHCP failures (was RE: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?)
--On Wednesday, 01 August, 2007 01:14 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * get a DHCP arrangement (IPv4 and, for those who want to use it, IPv6) that performs reliably, consistently, and largely invisibly (if I have to worry about what a DHCP server is doing, it isn't working well). A good start would be explaining what exactly went wrong with the DHCP server(s) this time. We have a problem and we're working on it is not all that helpful. While I agree, I also believe that, if that story happens at one meeting, it is a local problem. If it happens at two, we either have a protocol problem (which might be reflected in a problem with equipment that doesn't quite conform, although I don't have any reason to believe that is the case) or a provider problem. If it is a protocol problem, we should know what went wrong and the DHC WG should have their noses pressed into it. If it isn't, we need to not have it again. Ever. And, while I'm picking on DHCP because I personally had more problems with it, I see IPv6 authconfig as being exactly the same issue: we are telling the world that these things work and they should be using them; if we can't make them work for our own meetings... john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
