On 2013-06-13 14:02, Joe Touch wrote:
[..]
>> peeking at
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xml
>> 'act' and noting there are a few protocols that have act != 00 that
>> might be affected by this.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'm not sure why the table includes HBH and DO in th
On 2013-06-13 13:17, Joe Touch wrote:
[..]
>>> And, for some
>>> options, if the option in question is not supported, the packet should
>>> be dropped -- i.e., you cannot just "ignore the hbh header" (at east in
>>> theory).
>>
>> Why not? Is there any HBH header that is crucial for operation of IP
On 2013-06-12 14:58, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Jeroen,
>
> On 06/12/2013 11:44 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> with the exception of the HBH header, correct. I got tired of writing that
>>> each time I was repeating myself.
>>> the HBH is an issue to itself. expe
On 2013-06-12 14:36, Ole Troan wrote:
> Joe,
>
>>> an IPv6 router compliant with RFC2460 does not inspect the header chain.
>>
>> That cannot be true; there are headers after IPv6 but before fragmentation
>> that are hop-by-hop.
>
> with the exception of the HBH header, correct. I got tired of w
On 2013-06-07 19:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> 2. Comcast only appears to have a /29 and a /28 (2001:558::/29,
>> 2601::/28). That's only 1.5M /48s, and they have about 10x that
>> many customers. They likely can't use /48 plus semantic prefixes,
>> because if ARIN doesn't accept "semantic prefixes
On 2013-03-29 08:49 , Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2013-03-29 08:38 , Mark Smith wrote:
>> There seems to be multi-hour delays to the 6...@ietf.org mailing
>> address, a copy for reference. I'll make sure all future replies are
>> to ipv6@ietf.org.
>
> That is becau
On 2013-03-29 08:38 , Mark Smith wrote:
> There seems to be multi-hour delays to the 6...@ietf.org mailing
> address, a copy for reference. I'll make sure all future replies are
> to ipv6@ietf.org.
That is because you are sending mails without directly sending it to
ipv6@ietf.org it seems, as such
On 2012-07-11 04:54, Mark Andrews wrote:
[..]
>> And so I don't have to do it repeatedly, I can change /etc/rc.conf from:
>> ipv6_defaultrouter="2001:418:3fd::fd"
>> to:
>> ipv6_defaultrouter="2001:418:3fd::fd -mtu 1280"
>>
>> I appreciate all the help! -- George
On 1 Jun 2012, at 23:13, Karl Auer wrote:
> I seem to remember seeing, some time ago, a list of lots and lots of
> test IPv6 addresses. That is, IPv6 addresses that could be fed into
> programs to check whether they were properly interpreted.
Just use getaddrinfo() and all should be fine as then
On 2012-05-22 17:46 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> However, extension headers defined since 2460 have to be added.
> That's the case for MIPv6, SHIM6 and HIP.
>
> This matters - there are known to be boxes that discard packets
> with a SHIM6 header, for example.
>
> We do maybe need a little normat
On 2012-05-22 03:12 , justin franks wrote:
> Hello,
> I am an Internet Engineer. Specifically large scale ISP and Data Center
> networks. I understand we need IPv6 and am working towards that as well.
> However, I have major concerns about 2 areas in IPv6
> 1. The BGP prefix filtering
> 2. The assi
On 2012-02-29 23:10 , Stig Venaas wrote:
[..]
> I think the main reason OpenBSD and NetBSD don't support SSM is
> Apple's IPR claim. Without SSM support, there is little reason to
> support MLDv2.
>
> I'm a bit curious about the reason for the question. At least MLDv2
> routers are supposed to sup
Hi,
I was wondering, if anybody had a rough idea how many MLDv1-only
listeners are still out there in the wild. My assumption by now is that
current code out there (thus not stuff that has been up and running and
never upgraded for the last 5 years orso ;) all supports MLDv2... or is
there a major
On 2011-09-29 09:20 , Roland Bless wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Am 28.09.2011 23:07, schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
>> On 2011-09-28 23:08, Roland Bless wrote:
>> ...
>>> The current ULA-C...
>>
>> What do you mean? There is no current definition of ULA-C.
>
> That's right :-)
> I was referring to the defi
On 2011-09-27 17:36 , Rob V wrote:
> That doesn't mean all the systems within the car need to speak to the
> outside world. The engine thermometer doesn't care about traffic or the
> location of the nearest train station. It just needs to tell the dashboard
> its current read-out. I presume thos
On 2011-09-27 15:36 , Roland Bless wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
> assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers
> (e.g, those of cars, airplanes, or smart metering environments)
> would need internal/closed IPv6-bas
On 2011-09-26 16:07 , Thomas Narten wrote:
>> The mailing list archives are available via the IETF FTP server
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ipngwg
>
> Right. But these are missing a few months worth of stuff that Jeroen
> has on his site (specifically Jeroen has a year's worth of stuff p
On 2011-09-26 12:18 , Naarumanchi Kaushik wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In linux, route command has an entry for "default"(which is 0.0.0.0).
Please note that ipv6@ietf is not the "Linux configuration help"
mailinglist. (then again, not any other similar location afaik ;)
> There will ONLY ONE such entr
Hi,
I was cleaning boxes and found a 141MB set of mbox files which are the
i...@sunroof.eng.sun.com (and ip-ng@ before that) archives:
I could not seem to find them anywhere else, thus I've made them public
here:
http://www.sixxs.net/archive/docs/ipng-archives/
Google will get hold of them soon
On 2011-07-13 13:52 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> And you can do exactly the same on a Ethernet link... if there are
>> only 2 addresses (router + user) then there is no need to do ND, well,
>> you might need to discover the
On 2011-07-13 13:20 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> To take this little thing called SixXS as an example, we allocate a /64
>> per tunnel, but only use ::1 (PoP) and ::2 (user).
>>
>> We actually only configure ::1 on t
On 2011-07-13 12:09 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Heck, some people pick a /120 for it or whatever they find nice.
>> Configuration wise and counting wise /64 is just handy. And if one day
>> you have multi-access on that lin
On 2011-07-13 11:18 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Why not deploy it like a lot of folks have been deploying IPv6 for over
>> a decade already:
>>
>> - a /64 link to the router/host of the user
>> (::1 is you,
On 2011-07-13 10:57 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
[..]
> No, we do not provide stateful filtering. We a lot of the time don't
> even provide a CPE. Customer can connect their computer directly into
> the wall RJ45 and get an IPv4 address today.
>
> When looking at deploying IPv6 in this scenario, we
Hi,
I was wondering about the question in the subject.
One gets a packet, the TTL/Hopcount is one, as I am the router, I
subtract 1, then realize it is 0 and have to send out an ICMP
unreachable as I want to actually forward it on to the next router/host.
Now, the question is, do I need to send
On 2010-12-02 22:17, RFC Errata System wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5952, "A
> Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation".
[..]
> Historically from the 1960's, hexidecimal digits other than decimal
> digits are represented by upper case letters. Lower
Hi,
Should 2001:db8::/32 not be listed in:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml
as it seems to fit the condition of:
"Address prefixes listed in the Special Purpose Address Registry are not
guaranteed routability in any particular local or
On 2010-09-14 10:12, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> On 2010-09-14 07:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> [..]
>>> Does this sound like madness or something that might be of use? What WG
>>> might be best suited to bri
On 2010-09-14 07:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
[..]
> Does this sound like madness or something that might be of use? What WG
> might be best suited to bring this idea to?
What part can not be achieved with WHOIS/RPSL already?
Guess you would have to only introduce a few new tokens to get to what
[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
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
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
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
Xu Xiaohu wrote:
> Since the following email is not successfully received by some subscribers,
> so I resend it.
You might want to try and subscribe to ipv6@ietf.org to resolve part of
that issue, otherwise everytime you sent something it ends up in the
moderation queue
Greets,
Jeroen
sig
Vijayrajan ranganathan wrote:
> Hi,
>If I want to use more than 1 loopback IPv4 address, I can
>assign one from 127.0.0.0/8 address range.
>
>Does IANA reserve some IPv6 address range for loopback communication?
>If not, what is the best address range to use for assigning such an
>
Tim Riker wrote:
> Has there been talk of having 6to4 gateways transform icmp6 traffic
> to/from icmp with ipv6 encapsulated in the ipv4 icmp payload?
>
> (instead of icmp6 inside protocol type 41 ipv4 packets)
>
> This could be identified by the icmp6 header in the payload on the
> return to unpa
Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
> Alex,
>
> While I agree that the use of an EUI-64 network identifier predicates a
> 64-bit prefix, I am not convinced that an EUI-64 is the best way to go.
> After all, the Ethernet MAC address is only 48 bits, so we are
> essentially "throwing away" 16 bits (assuming tha
Tim Chown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:36:57PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> For what it's worth,
>>>
>>> Whenever statelessly auto-configuring an IPv6 address on Ethernet the
>>> 10th and 11th bytes are alwa
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> For what it's worth,
>
> Whenever statelessly auto-configuring an IPv6 address on Ethernet the
> 10th and 11th bytes are always 'fffe', hardcoded. These are lost bits.
The world has more devices than Ethernet. The Ethernet MAC -> EUI-64
trick (thus your lost fffe bits
Mark Townsley wrote:
> We have setup an email list for discussion leading up to the interim
> v4v6 coexistence meeting on October 1-2, 2008 in Montréal, Canada. If
> you are registered to attend the meeting, you should already be on the list.
>
> The list is open, please subscribe and begin usin
Fernando Gont wrote:
Folks,
RFC 2460 states that every link in an internet have an MTU of 1280
octets or greater, and that any link that cannot convey a 1280-octet
packet in one piece must provide fragmentation and reassembly at a layer
bellow IPv6.
However, while talking about the specs wi
Sean Siler wrote:
Microsoft based Operating Systems join the All Nodes On Link Multicast Group
> as specified by RFC 4291, but that RFC does not mandate that nodes must
> reply to ICMP echo requests. So while we do not reply to pings to
ff02::1,
> we are also in compliance with the RFC.
Thus
Brian McGehee wrote:
"ping6 ff02::1
Which should make every single host on a link answer to it."
Answer with it's link-local address, which is probably not the goal.
Then what is the goal? Negative comments are great, but not so very
useful, if people want the correct answer to their wrong
Prasanna Ram Venkatachalam wrote:
Hi all,
With the evolving IPv6 which will be a mandate soon(as far as i know),
the network discovery is going to be very difficult. Is there any
optimized way proposed so far which can be used with IPv6 for network
discovery??
ping6 ff02::1
Which should ma
I unfortunately just noticed the following being spread around.
This is a real big loss :(
From http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20071030220114
8<-
Jun-ichiro "itojun" Itoh Hagino passed away on October 29, 2007 at t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
> I think that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on how technical
> material would be presented. I would prefer to hide "wee bit outdated"
> books, just as I don't say anything about Classful addressing when
> teaching people what an IPv4 address is. VLSM and C
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> A book I'm pondering over, buying it maybe one day:
>
> IPv6 Advanced Protocols Implementation
> at Morgan-Kaufmann of Elsevier
> http://tinyurl.com/2cetvh
Did not see that one before, but I see one important name on the book,
Jinmei, and as such indeed, if you are look
Mohsen Souissi wrote:
[..]
> ==> See also the native-French-wiki book: http://livre.g6.asso.fr/
> (from the Book "IPv6, Theorie et pratique", O'Reilly, 4th Edition).
>
> | are pretty much up to date.
>
> ==> so is the book online...
Also online: http://www.ip6.com/us/book/index.html (first hit
[this is going to be a long and sort of whiny one, apologies in advance]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
>> As such, you as an ISP will get more than enough address space.
>
> Please now go and read draft-dickson-v6man-new-autoconf-00.
I was not interested at all in reading it as your presentation
Hi,
I just noticed
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Dickson-lightning.pdf
and found some serious flaws and most likely misunderstandings in the
way that some things are presented in there. It was already publicly
presented at the NANOG meeting, so lets discuss ;)
===
Slide 4: 200
Brian Dickson wrote:
[..]
> If an ISP gets a /32, and gives out /48's, which they can do without
> requiring supporting documentation,
> and reserves space for each allocation (say a nibble), that leaves only
> 12 bits of "range", or 4096 customers.
You do realize that a /48 is *65536* /64's and a
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
[..]
> Definitely on my "own" network. That's what I was alluding to
> previously, when I said that not all uses of IPv6 are for ISP networks,
> and that therefore the tool kit available should not be aimed
> exclusively to ISP-relevant tools.
That is exactly why I asked
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnaud Ebalard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Can you please give me in one or two sentences (i.e.
>> little effort) the specific purpose/use those people have.
>> This is the only thing i keep asking for on the list and
>> no one has
[cross cc'd to v6ops as this sounds more like a ops thing]
Paul Vixie wrote:
> A site is a network of computers with a single administration, ...
>
Where has the IETF redefined the meaning of the word "site"? ...
>
>>> This has been a longstanding problem in the IETF; in fact, the inabi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It is more about creating a address space that can be used
>> for OTHER thing than the DFZ-way of thinking Internet we have now.
>
> Up until now, I've been on the fence regarding ULA-centrally-registered
> address space, but after several comments in the past two days
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Jeroen,
>
> As usually, you're trying confuse folks, manipulate words and read the text
> with your own thinking, not what is actually in the email text.
Wow, what has this to do with the whole ULA-C debate? Can you actually
supply any technical arguments instead of
Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> as the contributor of the DNS-related paragraph near the end of RFC 1918
>>> section 5, i can tell you that whatever the RFC says will only be a general
>>> hint to operators and implementors, who will proceed to do whatever they
>>> darn well want.
>> Can we then not make the
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> This is not correct. PI is not available from 2 RIRs, and there is not a
> clear view of when it will become available. In one of them, because the
> timing of the Policy Development Process, it will take at least 15 months to
> get it implemented and this in the case
Paul Vixie wrote:
[..]
> 0060032848922366217 deny ip from 10.0.0.0/8 to any in
> 00700 64258 4284170 deny ip from 172.16.0.0/12 to any in
> 00800 18840507 1240700651 deny ip from 192.168.0.0/16 to any in
>
> as the contributor of the DNS-related paragraph near the end of RFC 1918
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2007-07-09 13:58, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Now I do see another use for this kind of address space, but then it
>> should not be called this way. It could be used for ID/LOC solutions,
>> where these kind of addresses are Expl
Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>>> Of course, if everyone just used PI, none of this would be an issue.
>>>
>> At this point it is plain to see that ULA-C is nothing but PI address
>> space, because the IETF is in no position to enforce otherwise. So
>> please, l
Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> What I'm asking, of course, is this:
>>> Is there *anything* unique to ULA that is not possible to implement with
>>> PI allocations by RIRs?
>>
>> not really no. Except that real end-users like your
Roger Jorgensen wrote:
[..]
> too complicated and see bellow why.
How can something which already exists, and thus is not new, be "too
complicated"? Also as the text you referenced contained two different
approaches to the problem, which part is actually "too complicated" and
moreover why?
[..]
>
[Two for the price of one response, response to James far below]
Paul Vixie wrote:
> Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> | 7 bits |1| 8 bits
Paul Vixie wrote:
[..]
> first, in 3.1, this table:
[..]
> should be replaced with this one:
>
> | 7 bits |1| 8 bits | 16 bits | 16 bits | 80 bits |
> ++-+--+-+-+--+
> | Prefix |L| Reserved | RIR Num | LIR Num | User Num |
> +-
Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2007, at 1:03pm, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Most childhood illnesses go away but the /48 assignments made by ARIN
>>> and APNIC are permanent. What incentive is there - or will there be -
>>> for those organisatio
Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2007, at 10:52am, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the facts. It does seem like a childhood illness
>> though - obviously it isn't sustainable as IPv6 grows up.
>
> Most childhood illnesses go away but the /48 assignments made by ARIN
> and APNIC are permanen
james woodyatt wrote:
[..]
> I merely contend-- albeit heretically-- that "L=0" in RFC 4193 is
> nonsense. We should hand fc00::/8 back to IANA and revise RFC 4193 so
> that fd00::/8 is the ULA prefix identifier, where all addresses are
> allocated according to to the procedure currently defined,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Thanks for the facts. It does seem like a childhood illness
> though - obviously it isn't sustainable as IPv6 grows up.
It indeed most likely won't in the very long term.
But hopefully the id/loc mechanisms or shim6 or similar solutions will
make sure that the "IPv6 DFZ
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[..]
> We can argue about the meaning of "intrinsically" I guess. But what I mean
> is that they are /48s and I don't expect to see /48s routed globally.
Quickly checking http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/, taking a rather long
raw-dump of it, cut&pasting it into a textfile a
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Scott, you say
>
>> In a situation like this, I need to be able to resolve PTRs for hosts
>> using my neighboring networks' ULA space
>
> Why do you need to do this?
The need can be seen, but the big question is: why does one need it in
the *global* root.
If one is in
Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2007, at 10:39pm, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
>> Apparently people are still having a hard time visualizing use cases
>> for ULA-C, so let me try again to lay one out:
>
> [...]
>
>> In addition, I am likely to change ISPs over time, and I'm too small
>> to qualify for
Christian Huitema wrote:
>> And before you leap into "I'm never going to use the DNS, so whats the
>> problem?" please also note that I'm not saying that putting these
>> addresses into the DNS is good, bad or indifferent.
>
> What about "indifferent"?
>
> Suppose that we pre-populate the ip6.arp
Templin, Fred L wrote:
[..]
>> Thus you are connecting to the Internet, using IPv4 or IPv6 doesn't
>> matter, you have a dependency on the Internet. As such you are not
>> working dis-connected from the Internet and you have a
>> dependency on it.
>
> Only when you want to connect to another sit
Templin, Fred L wrote:
[..]
>> If you are only connecting to another ULA network, then why would one
>> ever need NS entries in ip6.arpa for this space?
>
> To aid in connecting to another ULA network.
So you are able to setup routing between those two sites, but feeding
them with NS entries for
Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Jeroen,
>
> Touching on just one aspect of your thoughtul post:
>
>>> DNS is an integral part of addressing and if
>>> we're going to move forward with ULA-C as delegated
>> addressing then let
>>> us move forward with addressing in its entirety.
>> So you want a disconn
bill fumerola wrote:
> [ limiting my comments to the discussion surrounding section 4.1 ]
You mean avoiding the questions that people ask to your 'arguments'? :)
My main question about ULA-C still stands: how is it different from PI?
What is the advantage that it gives to The Internet, especiall
[short version: why ULA-C, when there is IPv6 "PI" space from RIRs already?]
bill fumerola wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:13:23PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> IMHO then again, if you are requiring reverse DNS you clearly are connecting
>> some way or another to th
Templin, Fred L wrote:
> George Mitchell wrote:
>> Personally, I am less certain about the probability of ULA-Cs
>> being administered such that a collision will never happen
>> than I am about the unlikelyhood of a collision between
>> randomly assigned ULAs. -- George Mitche
Eliot Lear wrote:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>> I would have thought that router renumbering should be no
>> harder that host renumbering. Essentially all you are
>> changing is the higher (/48 normally) prefix bits. All
>> that is required is a method to distribute the set of
>> p
Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> The above hosts are Internet connected and most likely will thus also
>> end up
>> talking to the Internet at one point or another. I can thus only guess
>> that
>> they will be wanting to fully connect to the
Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>>> Which won't work, as ULA-C's are not in the routing tables, they
>>> won't pass
>>> uRPF checks and thus those packets of yours will get dropped to the
>>> floor.
>>>
>>> When you got gear you are going to attach to the internet request a
>>> PI or
Scott Leibrand wrote:
[..]
> Now, whenever anyone does a traceroute into or out of my network,
> they'll see ULA-C addresses in the traceroute
Which won't work, as ULA-C's are not in the routing tables, they won't pass
uRPF checks and thus those packets of yours will get dropped to the floor.
The
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> Jeroen, what about this quote from the draft:
>
> Sorry I mutilated your name again!
Don't worry about that, that happens everywhere (even I typo it) ;)
> 4.1 DNS Issues
>
> and PTR records for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses may
>be installed in t
Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> And help me understand how this equates to the AS112 issues. For sites
>> that (today) get PI space and don't actually advertise it to the
>> internet, aren't the DNS issues _exactly_ the same?
>
> IMHO, if reverse DNS is provided,
Thomas Narten wrote:
[..]
>> We have to be *very* careful here. If we allow PTR's to
>> be installed in the global DNS then globally reachable
>> nameservers *have* to exist for each prefix allocated.
>> Otherwise the problems that the AS112 project is trying to
>> deal wi
[excuses for the intermission, but clearly it is time to state it again]
Nour, Nina N. wrote:
> I have been trying to unsubscribe from this mailing list
> unsuccessfully. Could someone help!
For clarity, mainly for people who don't ask and do want to get out:
As described below:
> --
TJ wrote:
[..]
> For clarification - let's say we have a device that can filter based on the
> presence of a routing header, but cannot be more granular and filter based
> on what type of routing header it is.
Then that device's IPv6 implementation is inherently broken. This, as
with the current s
[cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this
happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if
there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they
will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wr
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 13-Jun-2007, at 14:33, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Joe Abley wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13-Jun-2007, at 10:09, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have one teeny thing that I think would be worthwhile repeating in
>>>> t
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 13-Jun-2007, at 10:09, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> I have one teeny thing that I think would be worthwhile repeating in
>> that document: "Please enable uRPF where possible" as that actually
>> already takes care of the most of the prob
Bob Hinden wrote:
[..]
> I agree with Thomas that it is important to state this very clearly.
> How about something like this:
>
>Firewall policy intended to protect against packets containing RH0
>must be constructed such that routing headers of other types
>are not filtered by defa
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
[..]
> If we get more restrictive about ULA-Cs, my bet is that something else
> will morph to take their place (and the place of site-local addresses).
> I guess people just like to have this tool.
The "ULA-C tool" already exists: IPv6 PI space from the RIRs.
That satisf
Mark Smith wrote:
> Any residential user who needs to have non-globally accessible devices
> attached to their home network could use them.[..]
the "normal" ULA (RFC4193) provides this already. The "user interface"
is simply the box that auto generates it and then applies it. Presto.
This thus al
Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have posted a draft which checks for loops in the source routed
> header. It works for nearly all the cases. The reason is in case a new
> header is added to replace the RH0, or if the RH0 is not deprecated
> (for reasons that it is required by the management) th
Hi,
A little mail for a nice Monday morning discussion/flamebait:
I became to realize that RH0 filtering is at all not really necessary.
Networks who have uRPF enabled, they check the source of the packet and
as such the packet pingpong doesn't work, yes the packet arrives, but
when the packet
Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> As such, when you are a transit provider, and you have on the edges of
>> your network some vulnerable hosts, those hosts can be used to apply
>> this attack to your network.
>>
>> The documentatio
Brian Haberman wrote:
[..]
>> The sentence could be modified in :
>>
>> "Compliant IPv6 hosts and routers MUST NOT process RH0 in packets
>> addressed to them. Those packets MUST be dropped without further
>> processing. In particular, the value of the Segments Left field
>> MUST not be consi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
> I think my initial email gave the wrong impression of Solaris' behavior.
>
> Solaris 9 & 10 will drop these packets by default, whether they
> are being received as the final destination or as a stepping stone.
Cool, that sounds much better (IMHO :) Does the "DROP"
See below.
Very short though.
I personally would rather see a "MUST drop packets containing RH0".
Greets,
Jeroen
--
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
Author(s)
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
