On Thursday, December 29, 2011 03:46:48 AM sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
And there are other platforms, e.g. Juniper M/MX/T, where
there is no concept of punt a packet to software to
perform a forwarding decision. The packet is either
forwarded in hardware, or dropped. IPv6 prefixes 64
bit are
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Because that's the Microsoft quality. PERIOD.
We knew it was a crooked game, but it was the only game in town.
On (2011-12-29 16:56 +0800), Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 03:46:48 AM sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
And there are other platforms, e.g. Juniper M/MX/T, where
there is no concept of punt a packet to software to
forwarded in hardware, or dropped. IPv6 prefixes 64
IOS
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 05:50:58 AM Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
From what I understand, the answer is likely to be yes
and the
reason is likely to be deployed equipment only
supports IGMP v2.
This is true for us - the broadcaster whose IPTv traffic we
carry supports only IGMPv2. This
* Valdis Kletnieks:
According to the end to end argument, the only possible solution
to the problem, with no complete or correct alternatives, is to
let hosts directly participate in IGP activities.
If it's the only possible spolution, how come 99.8% of the end nodes
do just fine without
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 06:19:14 AM Mike McBride
wrote:
Agreed. I'm seeking confirmation, from IPTV implementers,
that non igmpv3 support is the reason for using ASM with
IPTV. Versus other reasons such as reducing state. Or is
this a non issue and everyone is using SSM with IPTV?
We
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 07:32:38 AM Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
To my knowledge in most today's networks even if legacy
equipment don't support IGMPv3 most likely 1st hop
router does static translation and SSM upstream.
Yes, SSM Mapping allows for PIM-SSM to be used in a network
where the
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 07:58:53 AM Glen Kent wrote:
SSM is also used since we *know* the IP addresses of the
content servers that are the sources - You dont need
ASM. I dont think maintaining RP infrastructure is
trivial. Who wants to deal with register packets, etc.
Small routers
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:55:31 PM Antonio Querubin
wrote:
That and numerous clients which don't know anything about
SSM.
With SSM Mapping, they don't need to.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 08:02:04 AM Keegan Holley
wrote:
Isn't source discovery and efficiency a big concern for
ASM? If individual streams are tied to a specific
source then it's possible to live without some of the
overhead involved in ASM. Joins go straight to the
source,
(*) If you think I'm going to run an IGP on some of my file servers when
default route to the world out the public 1G interface, and 5 static routes
describing the private 10G network is actually the *desired* semantic because
if anybody re-engineers the 10G net enough to make me change the
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:53:29 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
IGP snooping is not necessary if the host have only one next
hop router.
You don't need an IGP either at that point, no matter what some paper from
years ago tries to assert. :)
pgpOVkl5pWSgU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
(you forgot to change subj:)
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Next topic, ethernet is too chaotic and inefficient to deploy and support
mission critical applications in LAN or WAN or data center.
yes, let's get something with say fixed sized packets,
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 24 Dec 2011, at 6:32 , Glen Kent wrote:
I am trying to understand why standards say that using a subnet
prefix length other than a /64 will break many features of IPv6,
including Neighbor Discovery (ND), Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)
[RFC3971], .. [reference
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:14:20 GMT, Florian Weimer said:
Because there's a CPE which acts as a mediator, or the host uses some
dial-up-type protocol which takes care of the IGP interaction.
So what percent of the *CPE* in the average cable-internet or DSL farm *actually
uses* an IGP, and how much
On 12/28/2011 11:50 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
With DHCP only, there is no DAD necessary.
Plonk
AlanC
--
a...@clegg.com | acl...@infoblox.com
1.919.355.8851
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So what percent of the *CPE* in the average cable-internet or DSL farm
*actually
uses* an IGP,
As I wrote:
If a host receives RAs only from a router, the host can do
nothing other than installing the router as the default
router. If not, however, the host
Sounds like we have one group saying that IPv6 is too complicated and
that all the overhead of IPv6 had resulted in slow adoption.
Meanwhile we have others saying it doesn't have enough functionality,
and should also include IGP.
Seems like IPv6 as it is has struck a balance somewhere in the
Ding Ding Ding!
The answer, speaking as a downstream and a transit provider, is to just
peer where you need guaranteed connectivity. If change is a problem to
your customers, they don't understand how BGP works and they need to cut
out the middle-man.
Tom
Ray Soucy wrote:
Sounds like we have one group saying that IPv6 is too complicated and
that all the overhead of IPv6 had resulted in slow adoption.
Meanwhile we have others saying it doesn't have enough functionality,
and should also include IGP.
Not at all. It is wrong that ND is so
On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
From what I understand, the answer is likely to be yes and the
reason is likely to be deployed equipment only
supports IGMP v2.
That and numerous clients which don't know anything about
Le 28/12/2011 16:45, sth...@nethelp.no a écrit :
If every route is nicely split at the 64-bit boundary, then it
saves a step in matching the prefix. Admittedly a very inexpensive
step.
My point here is that IPv6 is still defined as longest prefix
match,
:-) yes agree, except that it's not
On 12/29/2011 7:59 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Next topic, ethernet is too chaotic and inefficient to deploy and support
mission critical applications in LAN or WAN or data center.
See IEEE1588v2 (Precision Time Protocol), SyncE, and Data center
bridging (DCB) - all attempts to remedy such
... host systems should participate in IGP
We tried that.
It didn't scale well.
The Internet today is very different than the Internet in 1981.
-did you? I thought CLNS with plethora of ip addresses compared to ipv4 was
buried before it could be widely deployed, I was not around back than but
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 05:10:15 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
Of course this isn't strictly true,...
Of course, not strictly.
What I meant was the CRS and ASR9000 don't operate like the
6500/7600 and other Cisco switches that punted packets to
CPU if, for one reason or another, a bug or
On Dec 29, 2011 6:38 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Sounds like we have one group saying that IPv6 is too complicated and
that all the overhead of IPv6 had resulted in slow adoption.
Meanwhile we have others saying it doesn't have enough functionality,
and should also include IGP.
For example Apple products don't support IGMPv3.
Implemented at last in 2011 (!) under OSX Lion, 10 years after Windows XP...
$ sysctl net.inet.igmp.default_version
net.inet.igmp.default_version: 3
Le 28/12/2011 13:13, Ray Soucy a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
Also somehow the rule that all normal address space must use 64-bit
interface identifiers found its way into the specs for no reason
that I have ever been able to uncover.
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 10:06 -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
yes, let's get something with say fixed sized packets, ability to have
predictable jitter and also, for fun, no more STP!
Ethernet is too complex, maybe something simpler? I hear there's this
new tech 'ATM'? it seems to fit the bill!
If I am not mistaken the IETF efforts to standardize the TRILL spec, and IEEE
efforts to standardize the DCB spec will provide the desired features to
Ethernet: lossless delivery, QoS, and bringing an IS-IS layer 3 model to layer
2. I think Cisco has a pre TRILL/DCB standards feature set called
On Dec 29, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
... host systems should participate in IGP
We tried that.
It didn't scale well.
The Internet today is very different than the Internet in 1981.
-did you? I thought CLNS with plethora of ip addresses compared to ipv4 was
buried
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Kevin Loch kl...@kl.net wrote:
The 64 bit mattress tag
This phrase made my year.
--
Ray Soucy
Epic Communications Specialist
Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526
Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
IGP snooping is not necessary if the host have only one next
hop router.
You don't need an IGP either at that point, no matter what some paper from
years ago tries to assert. :)
IGP is the way for routers advertise their existence,
though, in this simplest
On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:30 16PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
IGP snooping is not necessary if the host have only one next
hop router.
You don't need an IGP either at that point, no matter what some paper from
years ago tries to assert. :)
IGP is the way for
yes, let's get something with say fixed sized packets, ability to have
predictable jitter and also, for fun, no more STP!
Ethernet is too complex, maybe something simpler? I hear there's this
new tech 'ATM'? it seems to fit the bill!
atm-2, aka mpls
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 19:11, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
atm-2, aka mpls
I knew MPLS was fishy...
--
Darius Jahandarie
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:30:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
IGP is the way for routers advertise their existence,
though, in this simplest case, an incomplete proxy of
relying on a default router works correctly.
Which is sufficient for 99.8% of hosts out there.
Beyond that, if there are
In message 68424.1325204...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:30:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
IGP is the way for routers advertise their existence,
though, in this simplest case, an incomplete proxy of
relying on a default router works
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:12:43 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
Well I'd like to be able to plug in the cable router and the DSL
router at home and have it all just work. Just because it is 0.2%
today doesn't mean that it will be 0.2% in the future. As home
users get more and more dependent on the
On 12/29/2011 8:12 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Well I'd like to be able to plug in the cable router and the DSL
router at home and have it all just work.
Well, that's not too far removed from the plugged-in laptop with the
wireless still active. Toss-up which one wins default route.
What would
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Considering that the reason to have multiple routers
should be for redundancy, there is no point to use
one of them as the default router.
VRRP? The Router Discovery Protocol (RFC 1256). But given
how much more reliable routers are today than in 1984, I'm
not
On Dec 29, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
The real-world case for host routing (IMHO) is a server with a public
interface, an administrative interface, and possibly a third path for
data backups (maybe four if it's VMware/VMotion too). Unless the
non-public interfaces
In message 69748.1325208...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:12:43 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
Well I'd like to be able to plug in the cable router and the DSL
router at home and have it all just work. Just because it is 0.2%
today doesn't
OK, this is getting ridiculous.
Let's assume that we have a model where host systems receive the
global routing table from service providers. The stated reason for
this is so that they could make their own routing decisions when
multi-homed environment. Presumably with each ISP connected to a L2
44 matches
Mail list logo
