Hi Lorenzo,
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:25:53 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Mark Smith <
> i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm happy with using /64s for PPPoE links. However, if the /127 draft is
> > accepted, then I'd want to be able
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Mark Smith <
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> I'm happy with using /64s for PPPoE links. However, if the /127 draft is
> accepted, then I'd want to be able to take advantage of them on
> PPP/PPPoE sessions - if there is an approved mechan
As far as I can tell, the ping-pong behavior is a bug.
The operators do need some help from the vendors working around the bugs
until the vendors can fix them.
Separately, it appears that the operators want to use /127 for pt-to-pt
inter-router links, and I see no good reason to say that they
In your letter dated Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:59:16 +0400 you wrote:
>1. Absence of ND on p2p links is logical. There is no need for ND. There are
only two neighbors. We always know L2 destination address, why should we use
>any mechanisms to resolve it ?
Because, as is clearly demonstrated by the call
Le 30 mars 2010 à 13:00, Mark Smith a écrit :
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:17:27 +0900
> Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then.
>>
>> as the subject, but not the $subject, has changed, could you please
>> remove me from the cc:s. thanks.
>
>
> A
1. Absence of ND on p2p links is logical. There is no need for ND. There are
only two neighbors. We always know L2 destination address, why should we use
any mechanisms to resolve it ?
2. You are right, "forward packets back to the link they are coming from" is
not normal behaviour for p2p links.
In your letter dated Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:20:55 +0400 you wrote:
>I think the "PING-PONG issue" reason alone is sufficient to progress
>draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p. Using /64 and other short prefixes is very
>convenient for DDoS-attackers. With /64 prefixes they can utilize bandwidth
>of p2p(PPP)
I think the "PING-PONG issue" reason alone is sufficient to progress
draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p. Using /64 and other short prefixes is very
convenient for DDoS-attackers. With /64 prefixes they can utilize bandwidth
of p2p(PPP) link up to 255(HopCount) times more, than actual bandwith they
gene
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Mark Smith <
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> Apologies for that. Can we generalise the subject into non-64 bit
> IIDs, as it also covers the /127 case, and nearly all the reasons for
> non-/64s on LANs are the same as in the draft?
>
No
>> I know of a LAN that's currently operating with more than 30k nodes on it.
>
> With a single IPv4 or IPv6 subnet on it?
Yes. It's a mesh of L2 switching.
Tony
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administ
On Behalf Of Mark
> Smith
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:47 PM
> To: Mark Smith
> Cc: Becca Nitzan; s...@core3.amsl.com; ipv6@ietf.org; George, Wes E [NTK];
> ra...@psg.com; Miyakawa; lore...@google.com
> Subject: DHCPv6 support for /127s, for ISP subscriber PPP/PPPoE p2p links
> So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then. LAN
> segments will never have 2^64 nodes on them either - most only have no
> more than a few hundred nodes.
IPv6 LAN segments do not *NEED* a /64. IPv6 LAN segments *ARE*
a /64 by definition. It has nothing to do with the number
>>> So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then.
>> as the subject, but not the $subject, has changed, could you please
>> remove me from the cc:s. thanks.
> Apologies for that. Can we generalise the subject into non-64 bit
> IIDs, as it also covers the /127 case, and nearly al
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:17:27 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> > So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then.
>
> as the subject, but not the $subject, has changed, could you please
> remove me from the cc:s. thanks.
Apologies for that. Can we generalise the subject into non-64 bi
Hi Tony,
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:36:01 -0700
Tony Li wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lets not make P2P links a special case. Lets do the job properly. Lets
> > make node addresses 8 bits or less.
>
> I know of a LAN that's currently operating with more than 30k nodes on it.
>
With a single IPv4 or IPv6 su
> So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then.
as the subject, but not the $subject, has changed, could you please
remove me from the cc:s. thanks.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administr
outer vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127 draft)
Hi,
The subject pretty much says it. It's extremely wasteful to be
allocating a /64 per subscriber PPP/PPPoE session.
An alternative model is lay a "virtual" /64 over the top of the 100s or
1000s of PPP/PPPoE se
> Lets not make P2P links a special case. Lets do the job properly. Lets
> make node addresses 8 bits or less.
I know of a LAN that's currently operating with more than 30k nodes on it.
I won't embarrass folks by naming names. ;-)
Tony
--
Hi,
The subject pretty much says it. It's extremely wasteful to be
allocating a /64 per subscriber PPP/PPPoE session.
An alternative model is lay a "virtual" /64 over the top of the 100s or
1000s of PPP/PPPoE sessions, and have the subscriber's PPP IID used to
autoconf the LL and global addresse
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:17:28 -0500
"George, Wes E [NTK]" wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Christopher Morrow
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 1:11 PM
> Subject: Re: router vs. host discuss
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christopher Morrow
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: router vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127 draft
it also seems, to me at least, that there are a few involved ops
Apologies for the direct folks, I sent this from the wrong address to the list.
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> it also seems, to me at least, that there are a few involved ops folks
> saying: "Hi, we like the idea of /127, we like the simplicity, we
> understand how
it also seems, to me at least, that there are a few involved ops folks
saying: "Hi, we like the idea of /127, we like the simplicity, we
understand how to do this... could you remove the
subnet-router-anycast bits for 'router' instances and let us get back
to operating this network for you?"
It se
Shin-san,
> Actually, the text you wrote
>
> > And for LAN segments, I agree ND should be enhanced for
> > solving the ND cache issue.
>
> caused my question
>
> How about inter-router ethernet links (with 3+ routers)
> today we often use ?
>
> It seems to me that if we have solutions for
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Miya Kohno wrote:
> I'd say an adequate prefix length can be chosen based on operators
> policy. (/64, /112, etc.)
> But as for the draft, "more than two routers" is out of the scope of the
> document.
Agreed. I think the draft is explicitly not attempting to a
Miya-san,
I understand that the draft is just for p2p. OK. It's just fine with me.
Actually, the text you wrote
> And for LAN segments, I agree ND should be enhanced for solving the ND
> cache issue.
caused my question
How about inter-router ethernet links (with 3+ routers) today we often us
Shin-san,
> Then, still I'd like know about the case if inter-router
> ethernet link with more than two routers just like some
> Internet Exchange, some enterprise backbone or so, for example.
I'd say an adequate prefix length can be chosen based on operators
policy. (/64, /112, etc.)
But as f
> Then, still I'd like know about the case if inter-router ethernet link
> with more than two routers just like some Internet Exchange, some
> enterprise backbone or so, for example.
that is not a p2p link. the draft is about p2p links.
randy
-
Randy,
>> Then, still I'd like know about the case if inter-router ethernet link
>> with more than two routers just like some Internet Exchange, some
>> enterprise backbone or so, for example.
>
> that is not a p2p link. the draft is about p2p links.
oh. OK. I understand that your point. Thanks
Randy,
Thank you very much for your clear answer :-)
>> How about inter-router ethernet links today we often use ?
>
> /127 is what we use.
It sounds to me that you IIJ are using ethernet link as just p2p link
and ask your customer use just like you. I see.
Then, still I'd like know about the
>> Please note that the scope of the draft is limited to "inter-router p2p
>> links".
which may be a bit restrictive. i occasionally have p2p inter-server
links on which i use a /127.
> How about inter-router ethernet links today we often use ?
/127 is what we use.
randy
--
Kohno-san,
> Please note that the scope of the draft is limited to "inter-router p2p
> links". So it excludes LAN segments, hosts which need SLAAC, etc. We'd
> clarify this more in the next version.
> And for LAN segments, I agree ND should be enhanced for solving the ND
> cache issue.
How about
Hi Mark and all,
Thank you for your reviewing the draft and the valuable discussion.
> If the purpose of the draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01.txt
> draft is to contradict the position of RFC3627, then I think
> the draft needs to address all the points made in RFC3627,
> not just the Anycast
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Mark Smith <
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> I don't see anywhere it specifically says RFC4291 is to be updated, or
> replacement text for the impacted section(s).
>
The header says "updates 4291". But yes, there is no text that says wh
On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively, we could continue to ignore the real world.
>>
>
> Well, I live in that operator world too. Just because things have been
> done in the past incorrectly doesn't justify making it acceptable. They
> can be considered as "IPv4 t
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:25:42 +1300
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-03-26 08:00, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Mark Smith <
> > i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> >> One should note that [ADDRARCH] specifies universal/local bits (u/g),
>
On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-03-26 08:00, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Mark Smith <
>> i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
>>> One should note that [ADDRARCH] specifies universal/local bits (u/g),
>>> which a
On 2010-03-26 08:00, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Mark Smith <
> i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
>> One should note that [ADDRARCH] specifies universal/local bits (u/g),
>> which are the 70th and 71st bits in any address from non-000/3 rang
Hi Lorenzo,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:00:58 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Mark Smith <
> i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
> >
> > One should note that [ADDRARCH] specifies universal/local bits (u/g),
> > which are the 70th and 71st bits
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Mark Smith <
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote:
>
> One should note that [ADDRARCH] specifies universal/local bits (u/g),
> which are the 70th and 71st bits in any address from non-000/3 range.
> When assigning prefixes longer than 64 bi
g.com; nit...@juniper.net; ipv6@ietf.org; lore...@google.com
Subject: Re: router vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127 draft
> I'd like to understand why SONET links don't use ND. Are there any
> references to operating IPv6 over SONET that explain why ND can't be
&g
ect: Re: router vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127
draft
>A SONET/SDH link is a real point to point link. Which means that in
>principle you can use totally unrelated addresses at each end of the
>link. There is no need for an address resolution protocol (ND/ARP)
>because yo
> I'd like to understand why SONET links don't use ND. Are there any
> references to operating IPv6 over SONET that explain why ND can't be
> enabled?
A SONET/SDH link is a real point to point link. Which means that in
principle you can use totally unrelated addresses at each end of the
link. Ther
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:47:09 -0500
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
>
>
> It's not that an IPv6 home router has one WAN interface acting as a
> router while another interface on the home router is a host. The
> problem is also not about a home router or a router sitting in the
Hey folks,
It's not that an IPv6 home router has one WAN interface acting as a
router while another interface on the home router is a host. The
problem is also not about a home router or a router sitting in the
Internet core or the WAN. Any router has one or more network
interfaces over whi
45 matches
Mail list logo
