Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

Gert Doering writes: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 12:09:34AM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote: >> On 1/4/20 14:16, Gert Doering wrote: >> [...] >> > Even IETF discontinued recommending DHCPv6-PD for "inside a home network", >> > because it doesn't work. >> >> Would you mind elaborating on this one? > >

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

Lorenzo Colitti writes: > I'm not sure that the folks asking for IA_NA would be happy with IA_PD > though. Why don't you just try and see? You have nothing to lose AFAICT. Bjørn

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

Brian E Carpenter writes: > On 31-Mar-20 23:17, Mark Tinka wrote: > >> Operating two address assignment protocols is just silly. >> >> At my house, I don't even bother with DHCPv6 for DNS. I just use the >> IPv4 ones and let SLAAC assign IPv6 addresses to my devices. Just about >> done with the

Re: Why used DHCPv6 when RA has RDNSS and DNSSL?

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ writes: > 2) Right to object. Art. 59, but also many others. It is not probably clear= > ly said that it must be in a footer but it must be clearly available how to= > . > > https://gdpr-info.eu/ > > I don't have any problem myself, but I think it is good for the host of

Re: T-Mobile DE IPv6-only APN

Dominik Bay writes: > I'll do some research over the next dasy why Quectel 4G modems in > Teltonika routers won't do IPv6 at all. That has probably much more to do with the router firmware than the modem. Most (all?) Qualcomm based LTE modems support IPv6. But configuring IPv6 can be a bit more

Re: static IPs [was Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1]

Gert Doering writes: > s I said before, this insistence on "IPv6 prefixes must never change!! I never said that. What I say is that renumbering is painful, and we should therefore minimize the number of changes. We avoid all the pain if we avoid renumbering. > So if they change, we do not

OT: TLS with lists.cluenet.de (was: Re: static IPs [was Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1])

FYI: Got a temporary a problem with mail to lists.cluenet.de: - Transcript of session follows - ... Deferred: 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed. Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours Will keep trying until message is 5 days old Caused by: bjorn@canardo:~$ openssl s_client -6

Re: static IPs [was Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1]

Fernando Gont writes: > They can't do stable addresses, and they are facing this problem. This is a constructed problem. The solution is to remove the construction. I realize that the "can't do stable addresses" might be enforced by non-technical entities, but this would most likely not

Re: IPv6 on VoLTE

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > I have not heard of VoLTE using IPSEC, that's not how it was supposed > to work at least when I looked into this 5 years ago. Instead it > should have additional bearer on mobile interface to handle this > traffic. This might be confusing VoLTE with VoWiFI. The

Re: question regarding over the counter devices

Tim Chown writes: > But the mobile situation is now becoming better, isn’t it? I read that > >50% of the traffic to Facebook from the bigger US mobile operators is > now IPv6. In the UK, we have at least one mobile operator with a > growing deployment of over half a million

Re: question regarding over the counter devices

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > I just had a discussion with people from an ISP in the process of > implementing IPv6. They were afraid of turning on IPv6 for customers > who had purchased their own routers themselves, because these routers > might not have IPv6 firewalling on by

Re: SV: BBWF Beer meetup

Jon Harald Bøvre writes: > https://ip6.nl/#!foxbars.com > > foxbars.com does not appear to be IPv6 capable at all :-( I see a whole new class of pub certifications emerging: - "this beer was brewed in an IPv6-only enviroment" - "dual stacked pub" - "bar tender can talk IPv6

Re: CPE Residential IPv6 Security Poll

Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > This kind of mirrors the "default" security policy on IPv4 CPEs (since > those CPE's have NAT automatically turned on which creates a "block in, > permit out" kind of approach.) so I'm not sure why you would want to > default it to being different for

Re: A=1 L=0 PIO

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2016, Sander Steffann wrote: > >>> I'm trying to figure out what a "normal" currently deployed in the field >>> IPv6 host would do if it receives an RA with PIO /64 where L=0 and A=1. >> >> On an implementation level what I have seen

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > 3rd party: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/rdnssd-win32/ The question is: Why would any "normal" user care enough to install that? Heck, I don't even bother running rdnssd on my (Debian) laptop. I run BIND instead :) But let's face it:

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> wrote: > >> I assume you meant RFC 6106 :) >> >> But why would this problem affect only Android? And why only a very >> specific Android versio

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" writes: > Thanks to all people pointing me towards a DNS issue. > > It appeared that two IPv6 recursive DNS servers were advertised (notably > over RFC 7106 RA) and one of them was not responding. Causing ultra-slow > FQDN resolution for the dual-stack

Re: Ubuntu 16.04

Forgot to mention one very useful command if you are after short and easy-to-remember addresses with dynamic prefixes: $ ip token help Usage: ip token [ list | set | get ] [ TOKEN ] [ dev DEV ] See ip-token(8). Still don't have any idea how network-manager or systemd-networkd relates to this,

Re: Ubuntu 16.04

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> But, check your 'sysctl -a | net.ipv6.conf' you might find some knobs >> there. Next to that, check systemd settings as that thing wants to take >> over the kernel and thus ignores those settings and

Re: IPv6 Dynamic Prefix Problems

Johannes Weber writes: > what are your experiences with dynamic IPv6 prefixes? Here in Germany, > several ISPs only offer dynamic /56 prefixes that change after a router > reboot. Of course, for "normal" end-users this is not a problem. But for > companies having several

Re: New operational tool

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes: http://gabrielmartin.net/projects/hipku/ Something's wrong here bjorn@canardo:~$ dig gabrielmartin.net ; DiG 9.8.4-rpz2+rl005.12-P1 gabrielmartin.net ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status:

Re: IPv6-only residential service (MAP, lw4o6)

Yannis Nikolopoulos d...@otenet.gr writes: p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it as a mobile solution. I don't see why. If you can enable some other tunnelling solution on the CPE, then 464xlat should also be an option? You still end up with the scaling challenge on

Re: 6to4 in Internet aaaa records

Erik Kline e...@google.com writes: On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote: There in lies the problem. I have received escalations in the last few days on my eyeball network regarding internet servers with 6to4 in DNS and NAT64 WKP in DNS. In the WKP case, the

Re: Anyone else have problems emailing Cisco? (senderbase)

Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk writes: The IPv4 rep for the same MTA is Good. http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/?search_string=152.78.0.0/16 Would be interesting to see why the IPv6 rep would be different. Spam from that MTA would presumably go out over whichever protocol was available.

Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-foo-v6ops-6rdmtu-01.txt

Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com writes: Concerns for operational issues with both IPv4 and IPv6 Path MTU Discovery point to the possibility of MTU-related black holes when a packet is dropped due to an MTU restriction. So the fix is to just let PMTUD die for IPv6 too?

Re: 'Upgrading' NAT64 to 464XLAT?

Tore Anderson t...@fud.no writes: * Bjørn Mork Tore Anderson t...@fud.no writes: This is implemented in Android - its wireless hotspot feature works just fine using IPv6-only + 464XLAT as the upstream mobile connectivity. The hotspot zone remains IPv4-only though, Really? I have only

Re: 'Upgrading' NAT64 to 464XLAT?

Tore Anderson t...@fud.no writes: I think that your sharing must be some vendor add-on feature that's not part of Android proper. After some searching for radish on http://android.googlesource.com I think what you have is some proprietary binary stuff originating with Qualcomm, see for

Re: 'Upgrading' NAT64 to 464XLAT?

Eric Vyncke (evyncke) evyn...@cisco.com writes: 464XLAT is contained within a host, so, you will need an implementation for all your end host (laptop, tablets, ...) I cannot see anything in RFC 6877 preventing a CLAT gateway serving more than one host. Bjørn

Re: 'Upgrading' NAT64 to 464XLAT?

Tore Anderson t...@fud.no writes: * Dick Visser I just am reading up on the RFC and it looks like it doesn't have to be on the end host necessarily: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6877#section-6.5 This is implemented in Android - its wireless hotspot feature works just fine using

Re: Over-utilisation of v6 neighbour slots

Benedikt Stockebrand b...@stepladder-it.com writes: On your side, maybe some further segmentation can help to spread the load over multiple routers (yes, I know that's frequently not an option on WiFi). Interesting excercise for anyone with more time than TCAM: Implement segmentation for

Re: PTR records for IPv6

Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de writes: On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 09:30:22AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: So, is there any real operational value in this, or is it just a case of we did it for v4 so it must be right for v6? Its a nice to have IMHO. Whats missing is an idea how to get forward