Hi, the question is simply whether anyone is using, or knows of any
use of) DHCPv6 Authentication. Does it work? What is the operational
experience?
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
s - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 5:14 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: DHCPv6 authentication
>
> If you are already connected to the network yo
Hi - does anyone know if DHCPv6 authentication is commonly used in
operational networks? If so, what has been the experience in terms
of DHCPv6 servers being able to discern legitimate clients from
rogue clients?
Thanks - Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
Hi Chris,
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:rek...@semihuman.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 4:40 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: William Herrin; Ray Soucy; NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IP tunnel MTU
>
> True, but it could be used as an alt
Hi Bill,
> Maybe something as simple as clearing the don't fragment flag and
> adding a TCP option to report receipt of a fragmented packet along
> with the fragment sizes back to the sender so he can adjust his mss to
> avoid fragmentation.
That is in fact what SEAL is doing, but there is no gua
> I wish you luck in getting your host IP stacks to work properly without
> ICMP, especially as you deploy IPv6.
>From what I've heard, ICMPv6 is already being filtered, including
PTBs. I have also heard that IPv6 fragments are also being dropped
unconditionally along some paths. So, if neither IC
, October 29, 2012 7:55 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Dobbins, Roland; NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IP tunnel MTU
>
> The core issue here is TCP MSS. PMTUD is a dynamic process for
> adjusting MSS, but requires that ICMP be permitted to negotiate the
> connection. The realisti
I realize that this is reaching way back, but you may want
to have a look at the latest version of IRON:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-templin-ironbis-12.txt
IRON manages the internal routing systems for large virtual
service provider networks. It deals with deaggregation and
churn due to mobility
Hi Roland,
> -Original Message-
> From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:49 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IP tunnel MTU
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> > Since tunnels alw
Hello,
Several months ago, there was discussion on the list regarding IP
tunnel maximum transmission unit (MTU). Since that time, it has been
brought to my attention by members of my company's network operations
staff that tunnel MTU is a very real problem they need to cope with
on a daily basis -
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 6:10 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Owen DeLong; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> >&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:12 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Owen DeLong; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> >> A
> As I already said, 9KB is fine for me.
Then you will agree that accommodation of MTU diversity
is a MUST (my point).
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:47 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Owen DeLong; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> > I
Here is Matt's full table and descriptive text:
"Note that there is no specific reason to require any particular
MTU at any particular rate. As a general principle, we prefer
declining packet times (and declining worst case jitter) as you
go to higher rates.
Actual Visio
A few more words on MTU. What we are after is accommodation
of MTU diversity - not any one specific size. Practical limit
is (2^32 - 1) for IPv6, but we expect smaller sizes for the
near term. Operators know how to configure MTUs appropriate
for their links. 1280 is too small, and turns the IPv6
In
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:41 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> >> Infinit
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 2:44 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> > General statement for IP
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:42 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> > I am making a
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:36 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> >> You don&
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 9:37 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> >> Have egresses
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:55 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Owen DeLong; Jimmy Hess; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
>
> In message 01V.nw.nos.boeing
> .com>
> The proper solution is to have a field in IPv7 header to
> measure PMTU. It can be a 8 bit field, if fragment granularity
> is 256B.
We tried that for IPv4 and it didn't work very well [RFC1063].
You are welcome to try again in IPv7 when we have a green field.
Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:40 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure that a r
A quick comment on probes. Making the tunnel ingress probe
is tempting but fraught with difficulties; believe me, I
have tried. So, having the tunnel ingress fragment when
necessary in conjunction with the original source probing
is the way forward, and we should advocate both approaches.
RFC4821
Hi Owen,
I am 100% with you on wanting to see an end to filtering
of ICMPv6 PTBs. But, tunnels can take matters into their
own hands today to make sure that 1500 and smaller gets
through no matter if PTBs are delivered or not. There
doesn't really even need to be a spec as long as each
tunnel take
> PMTU-d probing, as recently standardizes seems a more likely solution.
> Having CPE capable of TCP mss adjustment on v6 is another one. Being
> able to fragment when you want to is another good one as well.
I'll take a) and c), but don't care so much for b).
About fragmenting, any tunnel ingres
> > I just want to know if we can expect IPv6 to devolve into 1280 standard
> > mtu and at what gigabit rates.
>
> 1280 is the minimum IPv6 MTU. If people allow pMTU to work, aka accept
> and process ICMPv6 Packet-Too-Big messages everything will just work.
>
> This whole thread is about people w
> I just want to know if we can expect IPv6 to devolve into 1280 standard
> mtu and at what gigabit rates.
The vast majority of hosts will still expect 1500, so
we need to find a way to get them at least that much.
Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 1:08 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> >> As your proposal, too,
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:06 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> Templin, Fred L wrote:
>
> > Also, when
> > IPv4 is used as t
Hi Brett,
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Frankenberger [mailto:rbf+na...@panix.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:35 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 day and tunnels
>
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 07:39:58AM -0700, Templin, Fre
Hi,
There was quite a bit discussion on IPv6 PMTUD on the v6ops
list within the past couple of weeks. Studies have shown
that PTB messages can be dropped due to filtering even for
ICMPv6. There was also concern for the one (or more) RTTs
required for PMTUD to work, and for dealing with bogus
PTB m
33 matches
Mail list logo
