On 2010-08-17 17:21, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> because my routers don't operate via telekinesis or redirects. my
>>> hosts don't listen to redirects as the information may be forged or
>>> improper.
>> So why can't you disable redirects? If they are configured on by default,
>> it will be possible to
>> because my routers don't operate via telekinesis or redirects. my
>> hosts don't listen to redirects as the information may be forged or
>> improper.
>
> So why can't you disable redirects? If they are configured on by default,
> it will be possible to configure them off.
>
> I understand tha
> link-local addresses have a very-limited use (and in some cases no use
> at all in the backbone that we operate).
i fear we are talking to people who don't go past the head end. cisco
is big, and folk can get tunnel vision.
randy
Jared
On 2010-08-17 15:32, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
...
>> For the 3rd time, since RFC 2461, router vendors enable Redirect by
>> default. Howsoever folks may thrash one cannot ignore legacy. So why
>> do we have to thrash so much and just
On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:50 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Randy Bush; ipv6 deployment prevention; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
> Subject: Re: Route
On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:33 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> please ping my router, it's interface address is:
>>> fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
>>>
>>> my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
>>> interface either :(
>> but they can ping whatever global /128 you
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> please ping my router, it's interface address is:
>>> fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
>>>
>>> my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
>>> interface either :(
>> but they can ping whatever global /128 y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ole-san
Ole Troan wrote:
>>> please ping my router, it's interface address is:
>>> fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
>>>
>>> my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
>>> interface either :(
>> but they can pi
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:50 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Randy Bush; ipv6 deployment prevention; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: Router redirects in Node Requirements document
>So it's a non-issue and they
>> please ping my router, it's interface address is:
>> fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
>>
>> my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
>> interface either :(
> but they can ping whatever global /128 you put on that interface, so why
> doesn't that sol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> Jared Mauch
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>
> please ping my router, it's interface address is:
> fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
>
> my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of
It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with RFC4443. But
this has no impact on shipping ASIC based routers. It is difficult to say
though if some smaller routers could be impacted.
Another problem with RFC4443 is that it is breaking some application. There
could be cases w
Hi Hemant,
-Original Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shem...@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 5:05 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan; Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: RE: Consensus call on
adopting:draft-krish
Jared Mauch
On Aug 16, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
please ping my router, it's interface address is:
fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
interface either :(
>>>
>>> but they can ping whatever global /128 y
>> but they can ping whatever global /128 you put on that interface, so
>> why doesn't that solve the problems?
> Because you are then using one set of addresses for protool peerings
> and another one for global ping - thus making life more complicated
> for the operator.
and is sure to have reall
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:48:41 +0200
Ole Troan wrote:
> Jeroen,
>
> >>> Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will
> >>> then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing
> >>> called the subnet anycast address will make sure that a /127 ptp simply
> >
>>> please ping my router, it's interface address is: fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
>>>
>>> my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
>>> interface either :(
>>
>> but they can ping whatever global /128 you put on that interface, so why
>> doesn't that solve the problems?
>
>
> > please ping my router, it's interface address is: fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
> >
> > my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
> > interface either :(
>
> but they can ping whatever global /128 you put on that interface, so why
> doesn't that solve the problems?
Because
one could equally just make a convention to use link-locals with fe80::1
and fe80::2
and /128s on each side if one needed global addresses for sources to
traceroute etc.
>>>
>>> no, ping/monitoring/data-collection fails in this case. (or needs to
>>> be overhauled to collect/
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 20:34 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>
>>> one could equally just make a convention to use link-locals with fe80::1
>>> and fe80::2
>>> and /128s on each side if one nee
Jared,
> Please explain how ll would solve the problem first. Maybe the bcp38+1918
> thread on nanog on recent days would be instructive.
which problem? there are several.
with regards to the NANOG reference, I don't quite see the similarity. I
haven't seen any implementation sourcing packets
Please explain how ll would solve the problem first. Maybe the bcp38+1918
thread on nanog on recent days would be instructive.
Jared Mauch
On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 20:34 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Ole Troan
Hi,
I'm reading RFC 2464 on stateless autoconfiguration where the interface
ID uses the modified EUI-64. Can an interface have more than one
stateless autoconfigured link local address? Can it have such address
with different pattern in the middle 2 bytes (instead of FFFE)?
Thanks,
Step
On Aug 16, 2010, at 20:34 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
>
>> one could equally just make a convention to use link-locals with fe80::1 and
>> fe80::2
>> and /128s on each side if one needed global addresses for sources to
>> traceroute etc.
>
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> one could equally just make a convention to use link-locals with fe80::1 and
> fe80::2
> and /128s on each side if one needed global addresses for sources to
> traceroute etc.
no, ping/monitoring/data-collection fails in this case. (or needs
On man, august 16, 2010 11:46, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I have no plans to ask Cisco and Juniper about this. I want /127 to
>>> continue working, and couldn't care less about subnet anycast for my
>>> core routers.
>>
>> I think you miss my point: they might finally comply with the specs one
>> day (i
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 9:07 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Randy Bush; ipv6 deployment prevention; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
> Subject: Re: Route
On Aug 16, 2010, at 5:43 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> It seems to me that arguing against redirects is actually arguing for
> having a common case, rather than an transient one, of nodes that don't
> have full onlink prefix knowledge. I think having all nodes attached to
> the link (i.e. both hosts an
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 9:07 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Randy Bush; ipv6 deployment prevention; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: Router redirects in Node Requirements document
>Oh my.
>So, hosts shouldn't h
Pascal,
ND has always been scoped per interface and so has been RFC 4862. That
is why existing routers support configurable redirects per interface.
Therefore something that is that clear about ND and Redirect, why do we
have to add more text to the node-req-bis document related to
per-interface?
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:43:54AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> I think you miss my point: they might finally comply with the specs one
> day (if you ask or not, others might) and you will have forgotten about
> this little subtle problem and upgrade your routers and voila your
> network is b
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:46:18 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> >> I have no plans to ask Cisco and Juniper about this. I want /127 to
> >> continue working, and couldn't care less about subnet anycast for my
> >> core routers.
> >
> > I think you miss my point: they might finally comply with the specs o
I'm in favor for adopting this I-D as WG item.
As already stated @ IETF77 I think this document is a very usefull and
necessary piece of work in order to allow DSL like access networks (N:1 VLAN
case) using SLAAC.
I unfortunately can't follow Hemants fears regarding DHCPv6 and SLAAC feature
pa
>>> P.S.: This fix doesn't prevent the use of /127s (it's orthogonal),
>>
>> Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will
>> then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing
>> called the subnet anycast address will make sure that a /127 ptp simply
>> d
Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> P.S.: This fix doesn't prevent the use of /127s (it's orthogonal),
>
> Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will
> then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing
> called the subnet anycast address will make sure that a /12
>> asking the question another way. is it still a good idea, or was it
>> ever?
> Currently I don't see the use. The only use seems to be an extra
> annoying slide when one is explaining all the 'good stuff about IPv6'
is anyone using ipv6's special anycast at all?
i see use of v4-style anycast i
[two replies in once before I truly fill up every one's mailboxes ;) ]
On 2010-08-16 11:46, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I have no plans to ask Cisco and Juniper about this. I want /127 to
>>> continue working, and couldn't care less about subnet anycast for my
>>> core routers.
>>
>> I think you miss my
Jeroen,
>>> Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will
>>> then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing
>>> called the subnet anycast address will make sure that a /127 ptp simply
>>> does not work, unless you have a platform which disables the su
>> I have no plans to ask Cisco and Juniper about this. I want /127 to
>> continue working, and couldn't care less about subnet anycast for my
>> core routers.
>
> I think you miss my point: they might finally comply with the specs one
> day (if you ask or not, others might) and you will have forg
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:17:53 -0400
Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> >
> > Again, sorry to be a nag but such a question should have been raised
> > when RFC 2461 or RFC 4861 were being discussed in the IETF. The
> > Node-Req document is only pu
On 2010-08-16 11:41, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> Thus, do ask Cisco and Juniper and other vendors where this now 'works'
>> if this intentional, or if they might finally comply to the IPv6
>> specifications one day, as then you might better watch out for this as
>> it will break your network. For t
> Thus, do ask Cisco and Juniper and other vendors where this now 'works'
> if this intentional, or if they might finally comply to the IPv6
> specifications one day, as then you might better watch out for this as
> it will break your network. For the vendors that have it, it might maybe
> be an id
On 2010-08-16 11:12, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will
>> then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing
>> called the subnet anycast address will make sure that a /127 ptp simply
>> does not work, unless you have
> Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will
> then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing
> called the subnet anycast address will make sure that a /127 ptp simply
> does not work, unless you have a platform which disables the subnet
> anycast ad
On 2010-08-16 10:08, Fernando Gont wrote:
[..]
> P.S.: This fix doesn't prevent the use of /127s (it's orthogonal),
Unless you configure two /128's pointing to the remote side, which will
then thus not be 'on-link for neighbor discovery, the little thing
called the subnet anycast address will make
Hemant,
>> I don't understand either. Why is it an issue for a sender node to
> transmit a packet on the link-layer as a unicast message, if its known
> there is only one receiver. I've not seen a single valid >argument and
> so its fine, one is entitled for their opinions.
>
> This is the email
Folks,
draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00.txt proposes a solution to the
ping-pong problem with point-to-point links, which IMHO is elegant:
> Check the incoming/outgoing interface of the packet. If the
> interface is the same, is a point-to-point interface and the
> destination address on the pa
Hi Pekka:
Redirect is almost useless on non-transitive links (NBMA) at large, not
only P2P.
Radios being non-transitive, you'll see more and more of those beasts.
And a radio router usually uses only radios. So there's a whole family
of routers that have strictly no use of redirect.
If we decide t
48 matches
Mail list logo
