On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 08:00:13AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
My question to you is whether:
- the use of site-local FORCES you to use split DNS, even if you otherwise
don't need to
- the use of site-local and split-DNS FORCES you to let the boundaries of
the site follow
Since you don't answer the question, I'll answer it myself. Site-locals
without NAT do not break applications.
A comment that might have be said in mail volumes...(I am slowly
loosing track..)
I can see a condition where site-locals do not break applications. If
the source address selection
Oops - I meant for this to go to NGTRANS and V6OPS.
Roy
I've got a few of questions on configured tunnels, as described in
draft-ietf-ngtrans-mech-v2-01.txt.
- Section 3.2 discusses how to set the tunnel MTU. It covers the case
where the tunnel MTU size is manually configured, with
Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
btw, my current naive prediction of the way the Internet will evolve is
that unless new invention occurs, the default-free zone will eventually be
flat-routing on the number of ISPs in the world, and that this number will
have 5 digits.
stable
One more apparent headache: a mobile node running mobile IP for IPv6
(MIPv6) will often be in 2 different domains simultaneously. It's home
domain (where it continues to have a Home Address and the domain that
it is currently visiting). How does one handle site-locals in this
case?
Consider the
is it reasonable to assume that if a network is advertising one or more
global prefixes via ND/RD, that the scope of a 'site' for SL addresses
corresponds to the scope in which those global prefixes are
advertised?
I think this would be an incorrect assumption. The question comes down
to what
Wind River has multiple sites with Internet connectivity that
are connected via linked lines. If you think of two of them,
you can picture a dumbbell shaped network. Our ISP is
routing different parts of the Wind River network space to
different locations.
So in IPv6 terms, your ISP
At the moment I believe we are stuck relying on two-faced DNS for
resolving names to site-local addresses. Luckily(?) two-faced DNS is
widely deployed.
There are other approaches. For example
draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes-05 was nice - among other things it
generalized easily to other name
One more apparent headache: a mobile node running mobile IP for IPv6
(MIPv6) will often be in 2 different domains simultaneously.
It's home domain (where it continues to have a Home Address
and the domain that it is currently visiting). How does one
handle site-locals in this case?
The
One more apparent headache: a mobile node running mobile
IP for IPv6
(MIPv6) will often be in 2 different domains simultaneously.
It's home domain (where it continues to have a Home Address
and the domain that it is currently visiting). How does one
handle site-locals
The mobile node is effectively multi-sited in this situation. Here's one
way to implement this. Some (most?) MIPv6 implementations assign the
home address to a virtual interface. Then the virtual interface belongs
to the home site, and the physical interface (which has the care-of
address)
Hello Thomas,
Consider the comparatively easy configuration where MIP is using
global addresses for everything, but both sites happen to use SLs for
some of their own internal stuff. When the MN needs to send an IP
packet to a particular address, and it is a SL address, where does it
send
Charlie Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Thomas,
Consider the comparatively easy configuration where MIP is using
global addresses for everything, but both sites happen to use SLs for
some of their own internal stuff. When the MN needs to send an IP
packet to a particular
Hello again Thomas,
Thomas Narten wrote:
The problem is that this doesn't seem to work in all cases. If the
visited site is using SL addresses, the above rule means that the MN
can't use them (for conversing with local nodes, at least not while
using its Home Address). In other words,
Harald,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[Dual-headed DNS]
That is well known.
It's also a pain to configure,
No argument here; and still lots of people are doing it.
My question to you is whether:
- the use of site-local FORCES you to use split DNS, even
if you otherwise don't need to
I take it that the implication here is that all MNs need to
be multi-sited and support the site scoping document (or
equivalent). In other words, it will need to be widely
supported in practice.
Is this really the implication? There is a hope/expectation
that very many nodes will
Hi Michel,
Probably. It appears though that postings by different people seem to
converge about the idea that the boundaries of the site (as in
site-local) match the administrative boundaries of the organization.
There is an issue with semantics but not with the concept itself.
I don't think,
Charlie Perkins wrote:
I guess the Mobile IPv6 specification is not supposed to cover
cases where the mobile node is not using Mobile IPv6. Then,
if a mobile node wants to use visited site-local addresses for
communication within the visited site, that should be O.K.
If the mobile node IS
From Hesham:
= I'm not sure this solves the problem though. It all
depends on where the SL address came from. Is it in the
visited site or the home site?
I don't think I understand the problem to which you are referring.
I think the best way to conceptualize this
Hi Margaret,
Michel Py wrote:
It appears though that postings by different
people seem to converge about the idea that the boundaries
of the site (as in site-local) match the administrative
boundaries of the organization. There is an issue with
semantics but not with the concept itself.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
metro addressing?
You can have a quick look at this, WIP.
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt
btw, my current naive prediction of the way the
Internet will evolve is that unless new invention
occurs, the default-free zone will eventually be
The issue was simultaneous use of site-local addresses both
at the home site and at the visited site. I think the problem
is that when we see a site local address in the stack and
expect to do, say, a TCP connect to it, we don't know where
that address came from.
The scope id will tell
I agree with Keith that the logical conclusion is that whenever a site-local
and global address are returned the only non-ambiguous decision to take is
to prefer the global address. But that means we lose the nice property of
prefering site-locals intra-site to help maintain long-standing
FYI,
This seems relevant to IPNG interests also (cross-posting from v6ops/ngtrans):
Fred Templin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fred L. Templin wrote:
FYI,
Below is a message from Matt Mathis (fwd'd with his permission) announcing
a new mailing list for MTU discussions. Matt has also posted an
I think the problem
is that when we see a site local address in the stack and
expect to do, say, a TCP connect to it, we don't know where
that address came from. If it came from home-site DNS then
we should somehow get to the home site. If it came from visited
network http link, then we
I actually think that all applications that expect to keep associations
around more than some well-known (and explicitly chosen) lifetime need
to have mechanisms for surviving renumbering. And unless/until
we introduce renumbering support into TCP, UDP, and SCTP, this means
providing
The issue was simultaneous use of site-local addresses both
at the home site and at the visited site. I think the problem
is that when we see a site local address in the stack and
expect to do, say, a TCP connect to it, we don't know where
that address came from.
The scope id will tell you
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 12:07, Keith Moore wrote:
snip - and agree
Are we trying to solve a problem at the network layer, which impacts the
transport layer, which really is best and most appropriately solved at
the application layer ?
The overhead of recovering from renumbering is close
Do any mission critical applications today use TCP (retorical question)?
If so, how do they cope with interface failure tearing down TCP
sessions, other than just failing.
well, it depends on the application. for instance, SMTP can just
detect that the connection was broken and retry sending
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
If a site-border node sends a DNS request and receives a site-local
address in return, how does it know in which of its attached sites
the site-local adddress is valid? Some people have stated that it
can use the zone ID of the interface on which the DNS response is
Was: Re: Naming and site-local addresses
Keith Moore wrote:
If so, how do they cope with interface failure tearing down TCP
sessions, other than just failing.
well, it depends on the application. for instance, SMTP can just
detect that the connection was broken and retry sending the
31 matches
Mail list logo
