Re: Windows 7 / IPv6 on PPP Adapter
since there's no opinion about this issue here's my viewpoint: i think this isn't an RFC 5072 compliant implementation and Microsoft should fix that on Windows 7. you can see the impact here on this graph: http://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=pcountries=ro -- liviu. On 07/17/13 15:55, Liviu Pislaru wrote: What is your opinion about Windows 7 IPv6 over PPP behaviour that i'm going to describe below ? if the global IPv6 address of the PPP interface has the last 64 bits different from the last 64 bits of the IPv6 Link Local address (interface identifier negociated by IPv6CP), then IPv6 is not going to work on that machine. [this is working on Windows 7 Linux ...] PPP Adapter: IPv6 Address: 2a02:2f0b:503f:fff::50c:9a9b Link Local IPv6 Address: fe80::50c:9a9b Default Gateway: fe80::1 [...] [this is not working on Windows 7 but is working on Linux ...] PPP Adapter: IPv6 Address: 2a02:2f0b:503f:fff::50c:abcd Link Local IPv6 Address: fe80::50c:9a9b Default Gateway: fe80::1 [...] you might end up with this config on your PC if the BNG / PPPoE server is using RA with M flag (just for default route) and a DHCPv6 server for IPv6 global address. is there any RFC that refers this issue ? thanks, liviu.
Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?
On 18/lug/2013, at 22:09, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity, Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic prefer IPv6 rule. The default RFC 3484 table covers 6to4 but not Teredo. Recent Windows deprefs Teredo of course. Brian Right. The policy table in RFC 3484 has no specific entry for prefix 2001::/32. This is corrected in the table of RFC 6724: PrefixPrecedence Label ::1/128 50 0 ::/0 40 1 :::0:0/96 35 4 2002::/16 30 2 2001::/32 5 5 fc00::/7 313 ::/96 1 3 fec0::/10 111 3ffe::/16 112 -- Marco Sommani Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Via Giuseppe Moruzzi 1 56124 Pisa - Italia work: +390506212127 mobile: +393487981019 fax: +390503158327 mailto:marco.somm...@iit.cnr.it smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?
On 19 jul 2013, at 11:30, Marco Sommani marco.somm...@iit.cnr.it wrote: On 18/lug/2013, at 22:09, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity, Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic prefer IPv6 rule. The default RFC 3484 table covers 6to4 but not Teredo. Recent Windows deprefs Teredo of course. Brian Right. The policy table in RFC 3484 has no specific entry for prefix 2001::/32. This is corrected in the table of RFC 6724: PrefixPrecedence Label ::1/128 50 0 ::/0 40 1 :::0:0/96 35 4 2002::/16 30 2 2001::/32 5 5 fc00::/7 313 ::/96 1 3 fec0::/10 111 3ffe::/16 112 From what I recall from MS representatives, gethostbyname() etc does not send queries, if nothing better is configured. Would this be controlled by the table above (6724)? /Martin - (native v6 FTW)
Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?
On 19/lug/2013, at 10:50, Martin Millnert mar...@millnert.se wrote: On 19 jul 2013, at 11:30, Marco Sommani marco.somm...@iit.cnr.it wrote: On 18/lug/2013, at 22:09, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity, Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic prefer IPv6 rule. The default RFC 3484 table covers 6to4 but not Teredo. Recent Windows deprefs Teredo of course. Brian Right. The policy table in RFC 3484 has no specific entry for prefix 2001::/32. This is corrected in the table of RFC 6724: PrefixPrecedence Label ::1/128 50 0 ::/0 40 1 :::0:0/96 35 4 2002::/16 30 2 2001::/32 5 5 fc00::/7 313 ::/96 1 3 fec0::/10 111 3ffe::/16 112 From what I recall from MS representatives, gethostbyname() etc does not send queries, if nothing better is configured. Would this be controlled by the table above (6724)? /Martin - (native v6 FTW) If I understand the RFC correctly, queries are sent anyway, but, if in the end the choice is between using the IPv4 source address or the Teredo source address, the IPv4 source is preferred, because its entry in the table (prefix :::0:0/96) has a greater precedence (35) than the Teredo prefix (5). The choice of the IPv4 source address has, as a consequence, tha fact that the destination address must be IPv4 too, so the record is ignored, even if it was returned by the DNS query. -- Marco Sommani Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Via Giuseppe Moruzzi 1 56124 Pisa - Italia work: +390506212127 mobile: +393487981019 fax: +390503158327 mailto:marco.somm...@iit.cnr.it smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?
On 07/18/2013 09:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity, Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic prefer IPv6 rule. The default RFC 3484 table covers 6to4 but not Teredo. AFAIK, every version of windows (i.e. Vista, 7, 8) that comes with Teredo also comes with a de-pref rule for it, not just recent versions. Put another way, Teredo should never be preferred over IPv4, because all versions of Windows with Teredo use extended RFC 3484 rules. Most of the Teredo activity we see is when IP addresses are used directly (i.e. no getaddrinfo). For example, BitTorrent connections where peers were looked up in DHT/PEX. In these cases, an IPv6 address will be connected to over Teredo if there's no other connectivity.
Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?
On 19 Jul 2013, at 10:34, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: On 07/18/2013 09:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity, Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic prefer IPv6 rule. The default RFC 3484 table covers 6to4 but not Teredo. AFAIK, every version of windows (i.e. Vista, 7, 8) that comes with Teredo also comes with a de-pref rule for it, not just recent versions. Put another way, Teredo should never be preferred over IPv4, because all versions of Windows with Teredo use extended RFC 3484 rules. Most of the Teredo activity we see is when IP addresses are used directly (i.e. no getaddrinfo). For example, BitTorrent connections where peers were looked up in DHT/PEX. In these cases, an IPv6 address will be connected to over Teredo if there's no other connectivity. Again, my understanding is the same as Phil's here. Many vendors/implementors started adding rules that ultimately appeared in RFC6724 long before RFC6724 was published. It took 6 years(!) for that update to be completed through the IETF. There are however some platforms stuck on 3484 or that don't follow such rules (Mac OSX is an interesting one...) Tim
Re: Windows 7 / IPv6 on PPP Adapter
* Liviu Pislaru since there's no opinion about this issue here's my viewpoint: i think this isn't an RFC 5072 compliant implementation and Microsoft should fix that on Windows 7. Hi Liviu, I'm not intimately familiar with PPP on Win7, but what you describe sounds broken to me. I'd suggest getting in touch with Chris Palmer about this, he's with Microsoft(you'll find his e-mail address in the list archives). For what it's worth, if you're using IPv6 over 3GPP mobile broadband, you get an entire /64 to play with - not only the single interface identifier assigned by the network using PCO (which is bridged into IPV6CP when using PPP). The only requirement is that you use the network-provided interface identifier when constructing the link-local address - no such restriction is placed on the choice of global address. 464XLAT is one example of a technology that uses more than 1 address from the assigned /64, so the behaviour you describe would make it impossible to implement 464XLAT on Win7 for users using 3G dongles in PPP mode. Tore
Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?
On 19/07/2013 22:15, Tim Chown wrote: On 19 Jul 2013, at 10:34, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: On 07/18/2013 09:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Wait... I had the impression that iff there was no other IPv6 connectivity, Teredo was used in older Windows because of the generic prefer IPv6 rule. The default RFC 3484 table covers 6to4 but not Teredo. AFAIK, every version of windows (i.e. Vista, 7, 8) that comes with Teredo also comes with a de-pref rule for it, not just recent versions. Put another way, Teredo should never be preferred over IPv4, because all versions of Windows with Teredo use extended RFC 3484 rules. Most of the Teredo activity we see is when IP addresses are used directly (i.e. no getaddrinfo). For example, BitTorrent connections where peers were looked up in DHT/PEX. In these cases, an IPv6 address will be connected to over Teredo if there's no other connectivity. Again, my understanding is the same as Phil's here. I think my recollection is of Teredo with Windows XP SP2. But I could be wrong, of course. In any case, the case for phasing out Teredo is strong, like the case for disabling client-side 6to4. Brian Many vendors/implementors started adding rules that ultimately appeared in RFC6724 long before RFC6724 was published. It took 6 years(!) for that update to be completed through the IETF. There are however some platforms stuck on 3484 or that don't follow such rules (Mac OSX is an interesting one...) Tim
