Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

2015-02-22 Thread Nick Hilliard
On 21/02/2015 14:28, Rogers, Josh wrote:
 RFC7349 is a nice summary of everything we¹re still missing wrt MPLS and
 is relatively recent so should be close to up to date.  In addition to the
 MPLS shortcomings, it also touches on recent IGP updates:

rfc7439, not 7349:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439

Nick

 
 3.2.3.1.  Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)

   RFC 3630 [RFC3630] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering
   capabilities to OSPF Version 2.  New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in
   RFC 5329 [RFC5329] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks in OSPF
   Version 3.

   RFC 5305 [RFC5305] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering
   capabilities to IS-IS.  New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC 6119
   [RFC6119] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks.

   Gap: None.
 
 When you talk to your vendor, ask what code will support these RFC¹s.
 
 
 -Josh
 
 
 
 On 2/21/15, 6:00 AM, nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org
 wrote:

 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0500
 From: Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com
 To: Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi
 Cc: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org, Juniper-Nsp
  juniper-...@puck.nether.net, cisco-...@puck.nether.net
  cisco-...@puck.nether.net
 Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16
 Message-ID:
  cae_ug16fgyqxstuyp9o+utdhdnpgbgfe6h5ebu4tdhb73vm...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:

 On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:

 What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite
 like
 to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...

 (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last
 piece for me.)

 Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to
 accept
 IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box?
 Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR?

 --
   ++ytti


 I would gladly take OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS+SR over LDP, but I'm seeing that
 is
 not all that is needed.

 I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) working
 over IPv6.

 IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic.

 --
 Tim:


 
 
 This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
 proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
 copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
 the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
 the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
 dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
 contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
 unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
 immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail 
 and any printout.
 



Re: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23)

2015-02-22 Thread Peter Loron
Apologies for a bit off topic, but I’m trying to get an issue resolved and am 
having trouble reaching anybody who seems clue positive.

From home via Comcast cable, I’m having trouble reaching some destinations. 
According to mtr, there is a particular node 
(be-11-pe02.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net) which is suffering  30% loss. 
Contacting the Comcast consumer support folks is useless (what are the lights 
on your modem doing? Did you power cycle it?). When this is happening, I 
usually am told they need to send a tech to my house. insert facepalm.

Is there a way to drop a note to the NOC or other folks who would understand 
the info and be able to act on it?

Thanks!

-Pete
 On Jan 23, 2015, at 09:14, Brzozowski, John 
 john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
 
 Folks,
 
 The thread below was sent to me a few times, apologies for not catching it 
 sooner.
 
 Janet,
 
 I sent you mail unicast with a request for some information.  I am happy to 
 help you out.
 
 For the larger NANOG audience, Comcast has recently launched IPv6 support for 
 our BCI products, these are our DOCSIS based commercial offerings.  This 
 means that if you gateway device is in fact in RG mode you will be delegated 
 a dynamic IPv6 prefix, by default customers are delegated a /56 prefix along 
 with a single IPv6 address that is assigned to the WAN of the gateway device. 
  IPv6 support applies to the following makes and models:
 
 SMC D3G CCR (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=216)
 Cisco BWG (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=347)
 Netgear CG3000D (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=347)
 
 For customers where you bring your own cable modem or have one of the above 
 in bridge mode we have enabled IPv6 support for you as well.  However, your 
 router behind the modem must be running software and configured with IPv6 
 support.  Specifically, your router needs to be support stateful DHCPv6 for 
 IPv6 address and prefix acquisition.  We have received a number of reports 
 from customers that the Juniper SRX does not appear to properly support IPv6. 
  We are working with Juniper and also recommend that you reach out to Juniper 
 as well.
 
 Please keep checking http://www.comcast6.net for updates, we will post some 
 additional information here in the next week or so.  In the mean time if you 
 have questions feel free to send me mail or post them here on the NANOG list.
 
 HTH,
 
 John
 =
 John Jason Brzozowski
 Comcast Cable
 p) 484-962-0060
 w) www.comcast6.net
 e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
 =
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: nanog-requ...@nanog.orgmailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org 
 nanog-requ...@nanog.orgmailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org
 Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org
 Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 07:00
 To: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23
 
 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:42:17 +
 From: Janet Sullivan jan...@nairial.netmailto:jan...@nairial.net
 To: 'nanog@nanog.orgmailto:'nanog@nanog.org' 
 nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Comcast Support
 Message-ID:
 cy1pr0701mb1164f3448b35404bbae671a8dc...@cy1pr0701mb1164.namprd07.prod.outlook.commailto:cy1pr0701mb1164f3448b35404bbae671a8dc...@cy1pr0701mb1164.namprd07.prod.outlook.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 
 I hate to use NANOG for this, but support has now ended a chat with me twice 
 without fixing anything, they just kicked me off.
 
 I'm not getting an IPv6 address on the Comcast provided cable modem/router.  
 I'm not getting a PD.  My machines thus have no IPv6.  I've hard reset my 
 router 4 times while working with Comcast, and I've been told to do things 
 like switch to a static IPv4 address, which shows a level of clue that is 
 scary.  And before that they were convinced it was a wireless problem even 
 though I have a wired connection, and told them that multiple times.  I've 
 wasted two hours with Comcast today, and even when I asked for escalation I 
 got nothing.  Just hung up on.  It's honestly the worst customer support I've 
 ever received.  I don't think I ever got them to understand the difference 
 between IPv4 and IPv6.