(In this reply, I'm very specific to the BSD kernel, which may not be
appropriate in this list. If the discussion continues on this
particular topic, I'll change the place.)
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:46:51 +0100,
> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> => I have a major concer
Naiming Shen wrote:
> i know of some companies employee can be fired by surfing the
> Internet during work hours. i would think those employee love to
> have private addresses on their workstations and no NAT devices at
> all, just in case they don't "accidentally" get fired. you can
> have many u
EricLKlein wrote:
Who did you qoute here again?
> > >> People didn't see the need for RFC1918 space in IPv6.
> >
> > Because of site-locals. With site-locals gone it is an entirely new
> ballgame. There is a need for private addresses,
> Others are looking at how hard it will be to implement i
Dear Colleagues:
Our sincere apologies if you receive multiple copies of this announcement.
CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS
Internetworking 2003 June 22-24, 2003 San Jose, California In technical cooperation wit
Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> > > Brian E Carpenter
> > > That's correct as long as the RFC3056 code is only enabled in
> > > the site border router. If it's enabled in any internal routers,
> > > the packets will get black holed internally.
> >
> > I don't think
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> If the routing table contains IGP or connected routes with
>> a mask of /64 as it should be the longest match route will
>> prevail over the 2002::/16 route associated with the tunnel
>> interface and traffic should flow.
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> You're making an assumption t
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > If the routing table contains IGP or connected
> > > routes with a mask of /64 as it should be the longest match route will
> > > prevail over the 2002::/16 route associated with the tunnel interface
> > > and traffic should flow.
> >
> > You're
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> If the routing table contains IGP or connected routes with
> >> a mask of /64 as it should be the longest match route will
> >> prevail over the 2002::/16 route associated with the tunnel
> >> interface and traffic should flow.
>
> >
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Well, yes but these nodes are only routers. Hosts MUST NOT
>> have any 6to4 pseudo-interfaces (or have it deactivated).
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> There is no such statement anywhere that I know of. Please
> correct me if I'm wrong. Hosts indeed have 6to4 pseudo-interfaces.
>
> Christian Huitema wrote:
> Making rules as we speak, uh?
Nope, see Brian's post. Nothing new in this.
Michel.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP arch
> > You're making an assumption that all nodes implementing 6to4
> > pseudo-intefarce take part in the IGP to get the more specific
> > 2002:FOO routes,
>
> Well, yes but these nodes are only routers. Hosts MUST NOT have any
6to4
> pseudo-interfaces (or have it deactivated).
Making rules as we sp
Naiming Shen wrote:
...
> though i'm absolutely against to have routing/dns
> support to SL.
SL's have to be routed within the site anyway, and probably have to be
in local DNS to be of any use, which pretty much forces the use of two-faced
DNS to avoid accidentally exporting them.
In other word
EricLKlein wrote:
...
> Our final decision
> was that we can not convert our database to pure IPv6 and let the hardware
> translate for us, so we will have to do it in the appliaction.
Of course. Full dual stack support is the only rational starting point;
all the other coexistence mechanisms are
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 19:00, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > Well, yes but these nodes are only routers. Hosts MUST NOT have any 6to4
> > pseudo-interfaces (or have it deactivated).
>
> There is no such statement anywhere that I know of. Please correct me if
> I'm wrong. Hosts indeed have 6to4 pseudo-in
On 27 Mar 2003, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 19:00, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > > Well, yes but these nodes are only routers. Hosts MUST NOT have any 6to4
> > > pseudo-interfaces (or have it deactivated).
> >
> > There is no such statement anywhere that I know of. Please correct me i
Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> You're right. However, I think it's just common sense that a
> host, which sets up a 6to4 pseudo interface by default,
> should also automatically disable it if a router is sending
> RAs with 2002:xyz:: prefixes. Otherwise the host
> implementation is broken.
Not necess
> On 27 Mar 2003, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
>> On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 19:00, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> > > Well, yes but these nodes are only routers. Hosts MUST NOT have any 6to4
>> > > pseudo-interfaces (or have it deactivated).
>> >
>> > There is no such statement anywhere that I know of. Please corre
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 20:32, Tony Hain wrote:
> Not necessarily. As long as the RA based prefix has a lower metric than
> the local pseudo interface, there is no reason to disable it. Depending
> on the implementation, this might allow for a faster recovery when the
> RA disappears.
Nope. If your
Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> > >> Michel Py wrote:
> > >> If the routing table contains IGP or connected routes with
> > >> a mask of /64 as it should be the longest match route will
> > >> prevail over the 2002::/16 route associated with the tunnel
> > >> interf
Ole Troan wrote:
> it should disable it for any received RA, i.e when it is on a
> native link.
No, because this would force traffic to 6to4 sites through a relay. The
RA receiving interface should be the path to default, and the 6to4
interface should be used for those prefixes.
> a host connect
Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 20:32, Tony Hain wrote:
> > Not necessarily. As long as the RA based prefix has a lower metric
> > than the local pseudo interface, there is no reason to disable it.
> > Depending on the implementation, this might allow for a faster
> > recovery when
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
> Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 20:32, Tony Hain wrote:
> > > Not necessarily. As long as the RA based prefix has a lower metric
> > > than the local pseudo interface, there is no reason to disable it.
> > > Depending on the implementation,
] Naiming Shen wrote:
] ...
] > though i'm absolutely against to have routing/dns
] > support to SL.
]
] SL's have to be routed within the site anyway, and probably have to be
] in local DNS to be of any use, which pretty much forces the use of two-faced
] DNS to avoid accidentally exporti
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 21:14, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Note that "metric" is a bit vague term; it has significantly different
> implications whether it's applied before or after the
> longest-prefix-match. Ie. whether it is used as a sequential number in
> which to look for prefixes in different proto
Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 21:14, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > Note that "metric" is a bit vague term; it has
> significantly different
> > implications whether it's applied before or after the
> > longest-prefix-match. Ie. whether it is used as a
> sequential number
> > in whic
Naiming Shen wrote:
> ...
> but if this list is sure there is no need for private
> addresses, lets abolish them completely, not just from the
> special routing support sense.
The point is that those commenting against SL don't run a real network.
There will be filtering done in real networks. T
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 21:43, Tony Hain wrote:
> > Exactly my point. If the pseudo interface has a 2002::/16
> > on-link route, longest prefix match will home in on it
> > instead of the default route.
>
> You are missing the point that your scenario has a 2002::/16 on-link
> route on the native
> From: Mika Liljeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Exactly my point. If the pseudo interface has a 2002::/16 on-link route,
> longest prefix match will home in on it instead of the default route.
Ahem, I need to step in here... a router is advertising 6to4 prefix,
it will advertise it as (at least on
On 27 Mar 2003, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 21:43, Tony Hain wrote:
> > > Exactly my point. If the pseudo interface has a 2002::/16
> > > on-link route, longest prefix match will home in on it
> > > instead of the default route.
> >
> > You are missing the point that your scena
Hi Tony,
The point is that those commenting against SL don't run a real network.
There will be filtering done in real networks. This filtering creates
addresses and/or prefixes with a local scope of applicability. IE: There
will be local scope addresses in any case. The only question is if we
have
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
> Naiming Shen wrote:
> > ...
> > but if this list is sure there is no need for private
> > addresses, lets abolish them completely, not just from the
> > special routing support sense.
>
> The point is that those commenting against SL don't run a real netwo
> Ole Troan wrote:
> a host connected to a native link should not
> automatically enable a 6to4 pseudo interface.
Agree, and especially not if this native link RAses a prefix within
2002::/16.
> Brian Carpenter wrote:
> Some hosts can support such a pseudo-interface, but having
> it on by defaul
i know of some companies employee can be fired by surfing the
Internet during work hours. i would think those employee love to
have private addresses on their workstations and no NAT devices at
all, just in case they don't "accidentally" get fired. you can
have many use of private address without
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
Naiming Shen wrote:
...
but if this list is sure there is no need for private
addresses, lets abolish them completely, not just from the
special routing support sense.
The point is that those commenting against SL don't run
Markku Savela wrote:
>
> > From: Mika Liljeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Exactly my point. If the pseudo interface has a 2002::/16 on-link route,
> > longest prefix match will home in on it instead of the default route.
>
> Ahem, I need to step in here... a router is advertising 6to4 prefix,
>
One of the downsides of site locals is the same downside
you get with 1918 space -- merge two companies using private
address space and you'll probably have to deal with address
space collisions, forcing one of the two to renumber.
There at least two drafts to make site-local addresses unique.
A
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 01:10 AM, Naiming Shen wrote:
] > ok, but if any special routing support for SL is removed, then
the only
] > thing left is a private address space for SL. as in ipv4 case,
i'm not
] > aware of any application treating 10.x.x.x addr any different
from the
]
i know of some companies employee can be fired by surfing the
Internet during work hours. i would think those employee love to
have private addresses on their workstations and no NAT devices at
all, just in case they don't "accidentally" get fired.
so we should cripple the v6 architecture just so
38 matches
Mail list logo
