NANOG 39 IPv6 Network Operations BOF
Hi, I'm going to be running the IPv6 Network Operations BOF at NANOG 39 in Toronto. The BOF will be held in Sheraton Hall B/C, 2pm to 3.30pm on Tuesday February 6th. A basic list of topics is available via the agenda page. If you have any other (relevant) issues you'd like to raise about IPv6, let me know and I'll try to get them in. I'd also be interested to know if people are definitely coming, just so I know I'm not going to be sitting there by myself :) If you're around and not going to either the BGP tutorial or the Peering BOF (part I) and are interested in IPv6, please drop in. Hopefully it won't just be about how awful IPv6 is and how multihoming is broken! Regards, Stewart Bamford -- Stewart Bamford (Posting as an individual) Level3 Snr IP Engineer *** Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Level3 *** Primary email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Secondary email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal website http://www.stewartb.com/
Re: IPv6 Transit?
> Does anyone have any info on IPv6 deployment at the Tier-1 / Tier-1.5 > level? > We are multi-homed to both Level3 and Abovenet in the UK and Level3 only > in the US. > Level3 did have a promising sounding beta program last year but that > seems to have stalled. Abovenet apparently have no schedule to deploy v6 > at the moment. > I would like to be able to v6 enable our network but without a transit > provider thatÂ’s going to prove a bit tricky. Hi all, The Level 3 IPv6 beta is still running. Those (peers and customers) directly connected to AS3356 who are interested should drop a mail to; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, StewartB
Re: level3.net in Chicago - high packet loss?!?
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, chip wrote: > > > > > > > On 9/6/05, Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the hop(s) following the one you see loss for shows no loss, then > > > > > disregard the loss for that hop, obviously whatever it is, it does not > > > > > affect transit, which is what you really want to know. > > > > > > > > > > Is that correct? > > > > > > > > > This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in properly reading > > > > output > > > > from a traceroute (mtr, visualtraceroute, whatever). Basically you are > > > > seeing loss of packets destined directly *TO* that router, not THRU it. > > > > Most > > > > > > no... not destined TO the router, destined THROUGH the router that happen > > > to TTL=0 ON that router. > > > > Very true. Most backbone kit on a tier 1 network is designed to switch > > I was really just pointing out that 'traceroute' or 'mtr' send packets > with increasing TTL to show 'loss' or 'delay' from place to place, I > wasn't trying to debate the every-changing reasons why backbone equipment > might or might not answer 'ttl-expired' or 'unreachable' (or any > 'exception traffic' really) in a 'timely' fashion. That issue changes with > the wind/os/hardware/model :) Yeah, it was a sweeping generalisation, hence the excessive use of words such as "usually" and "most" :) I was trying to put the point across as to why things are like this, for those that might be wondering why. The main point was actually that the ability of a device (router, web server etc) to deal with stuff _like_ ICMP message generation does not reflect its ability to perform it's main task. > nice to L3 sending in the answer police though :) Thanks! Thanks :) SB -- Stewart Bamford (Posting as an individual) Level3 Snr IP Engineer *** Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Level3 *** Primary email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Secondary email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal website http://www.stewartb.com/
Re: level3.net in Chicago - high packet loss?!?
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, chip wrote: > > > On 9/6/05, Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > If the hop(s) following the one you see loss for shows no loss, then > > > disregard the loss for that hop, obviously whatever it is, it does not > > > affect transit, which is what you really want to know. > > > > > > Is that correct? > > > > > This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in properly reading output > > from a traceroute (mtr, visualtraceroute, whatever). Basically you are > > seeing loss of packets destined directly *TO* that router, not THRU it. Most > > no... not destined TO the router, destined THROUGH the router that happen > to TTL=0 ON that router. Very true. Most backbone kit on a tier 1 network is designed to switch packets in a distributed fashion, shifting packets between ports/cards over a backplane of some sort. On such kit, generating things such as a TTL-exceeded packet is usually punted to a central processor (whose primary task is to build route tables to hand off to the cards), which deals with the task in a much slower and much lower priority way than packets which transit the routing device. You also don't want your central processor to have to deal with too much of this sort of thing, which is (at least one of the reasons) why it's often rate limited. > which is also misunderstood by just about everyone :( but anyway... 'not > affecting transit' for reasons sited by yourself and min and adam already, > yes. Agreed. SB -- Stewart Bamford (Posting as an individual) Level3 Snr IP Engineer *** Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Level3 *** Primary email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Secondary email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal website http://www.stewartb.com/
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
> If you want to ping your customers you should probably use a /126 so > they can only use the specific address you give them. You need that > anyway if you want to route a /48 or what have you to them. Having just done an IPv6 rollout, I went for a block of addresses which I would use just for p2p links, split it into chunks for peers, customers etc, then used a /126 for each link. Seems to work fine and (I think) seems to be what most people are doing. > BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6. > Thoughts? The current recommendation for a /48 for any customer (pretty much) does initially seem to me to be a bit wasteful, though that's perhaps because I keep thinking in IPv4 terms. Having said that, I think that perhaps a /48 for home users isn't _really_ necessary. How many domestic appliances can you connect to the net :) StewartB -- Stewart Bamford (Posting as an individual) Level3 Snr IP Engineer *** Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Level3 *** Personal website http://www.stewartb.com/
