Most major wireline deployments provide /60, /56 or /48. Examples: free.fr,
KDDI, ATT. Exceptions are RCS+RDS (working on shorter prefixes) and some
North American cable operators, which AIUI are crippled by sucky CPEs that
fail to do anything useful when they receive more than a /64.
On Thu, Nov
James,
However notionally easy this problem is to address, I imagine that
practical matters, at some point, must rise to the top of the pile of
points to consider.
Those hosts are broken. They can't work in a multi-homed environment.
Those hosts are not broken. They work fine in
Also, rule 5.5 of RFC 6724 is inadequate. Hosts that implement it should
work better than those that don't because new flows created after the
primary default router becomes unreachable should automatically go to the
next available default router, but existing flows will still be broken in
Ole,
On 16/11/2012 09:28, Ole Trøan wrote:
James,
However notionally easy this problem is to address, I imagine that
practical matters, at some point, must rise to the top of the pile of
points to consider.
Those hosts are broken. They can't work in a multi-homed environment.
Those
On 14/11/2012 22:44, james woodyatt wrote:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 13:34 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I've always seen it to be solved via some kind of source based routing
automatically discovered between the ISP routers.
My point is that it isn't sufficient to handle this
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/2012 22:44, james woodyatt wrote:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 13:34 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
I've always seen it to be solved via some kind of source based routing
automatically
My point is that it isn't sufficient to handle this problem at just the
routers. At a minimum, the *hosts* need to be told which default router to
use with each source prefix. Right now the only mechanism that comes close
to doing that is ICMPv6 Redirect, which isn't suitable for
On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:41 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
However notionally easy this problem is to address, I imagine that practical
matters, at some point, must rise to the top of the pile of points to
consider.
Those hosts are broken. They can't work in a multi-homed
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
It's my opinion that we can't rely on 5.5 working. Hosts need to not support
5.5 and things should still work.
Why do hosts need to not support 5.5?
From RFC6724:
Discussion:
Mikael,
It's my opinion that we can't rely on 5.5 working. Hosts need to not
support 5.5 and things should still work.
Why do hosts need to not support 5.5?
From RFC6724:
Discussion: An IPv6 implementation is not required to remember
which next-hops advertised which prefixes.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ole Trøan wrote:
how do you want it to work?
the tools we have currently are:
- ICMP redirect
- ICMP type 1, code 5
- DHCP option for SAS/DAS policy
- RFC6724 rule 5.5
- RFC4191
what is missing?
In my mind, I was looking at a new mechanism that the ISP routers used to
Mikael,
how do you want it to work?
the tools we have currently are:
- ICMP redirect
- ICMP type 1, code 5
- DHCP option for SAS/DAS policy
- RFC6724 rule 5.5
- RFC4191
what is missing?
In my mind, I was looking at a new mechanism that the ISP routers used to
tell each other what
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ole Trøan wrote:
In my mind, I was looking at a new mechanism that the ISP routers used
to tell each other what prefix they were advertising and handing out.
the kind of do with
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment-03
but you can't a) expect
Mikael,
In my mind, I was looking at a new mechanism that the ISP routers used to
tell each other what prefix they were advertising and handing out.
the kind of do with
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment-03
but you can't a) expect the ISP routers to be
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ole Trøan wrote:
Or am I missing things again?
no, this is pretty much what we imagined, and what Markus has
implemented and showed at the IETF. the hosts would still do better if
they support rule 5.5 when directly connected to the exits.
Absolutely, 5.5 is a plus
Mikael,
Given that we want multiprefix multihoming with multiple prefixes, SADR is
pretty much the only solution.
But consesus? Wouldn't dear getting anywhere close to that. :-)
Cheers,
Ole
On 15 Nov 2012, at 16:15, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ole Trøan
Am 15.11.2012 13:09, schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
On 15/11/2012 10:19, Mattia Rossi wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/2012 22:44, james woodyatt wrote:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 13:34 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
] prefix assignment on home networks
I'm not against one or more /64 bit prefixes for a home net, if everyone else
(including the ISPs) think that home networks should be able to scale up to
18,446,744,073,709,551,615 hosts, I'm completely on board. It's not my
resource, so I'll take all
] On
Behalf Of Randy Turner
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:58 PM
To: homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks
I'm not against one or more /64 bit prefixes for a home net, if everyone else
(including the ISPs) think that home networks should be able to scale up
On Nov 15, 2012, at 12:27 PM, STARK, BARBARA H bs7...@att.com wrote:
The cascaded router scenario (in the tethered single-stack wireless network
and in my general purpose home network) works today with IPv4. But not with
IPv6. That's a problem. The /64 is very real in both of those cases, and
Chances are that part of the reason you had to go to a multi-homed
connection was that your router configuration was suffering from
bufferbloat, and so despite you having a decent connection to your ISP, you
were experiencing congestion. This is, unfortunately, very typical of home
routers
But when (single stack) IPv6 gets offered on that tether, that router will
only have a single /128 address. Hmm.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-byrne-v6ops-64share-03 is one proposal.
Which, I suspect, is how the router would get that single /128 address. That
works nice for the 3GPP
On 11/15/12 10:41 AM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
But when (single stack) IPv6 gets offered on that tether, that router will
only have a single /128 address. Hmm.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-byrne-v6ops-64share-03 is one proposal.
Which, I suspect, is how the router would get that single
There are somewhat limited options in my understanding with 3gpp release
7 networks, this sounds like a relatively good idea given the limitations but
it's
use generally seems like kind of a bad idea. That said I'm in favor of bad
options over no options, and I think it's heartening to see
On Nov 15, 2012, at 04:26 , Ted Lemon mel...@fugue.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:41 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
However notionally easy this problem is to address, I imagine that practical
matters, at some point, must rise to the top of the pile of points to
consider.
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:04 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Those hosts are not broken. They work fine in single-homed edge networks,
which are ubiquitous. The deployment of multiple heterogenous default
routers with hosts that expect networks to be single-homed is what breaks the
On 13/11/2012 17:47, james woodyatt wrote:
On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:33 , Randy Turner rtur...@amalfisystems.com wrote:
I've been away from the list for awhile, and am trying to catch up -- is there a reference or quick
explanation as to why a /64 assigned to a home network is considered to be
On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote:
I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can deal
with for now, that a /64 would be big enough
It simply isn't, because it doesn't allow
Op 14 nov. 2012, om 16:07 heeft Ted Lemon het volgende geschreven:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote:
I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can deal
with for now, that a /64
On 11/14/2012 07:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on the same
wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle the
multi-homing case. IPv6 deliberately places the multi-homing case in-scope.
This creates a bit
Op 14 nov. 2012, om 16:58 heeft Michael Thomas het volgende geschreven:
On 11/14/2012 07:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on the
same wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle the
multi-homing case.
I'm not against one or more /64 bit prefixes for a home net, if everyone else
(including the ISPs) think that home networks should be able to scale up to
18,446,744,073,709,551,615 hosts, I'm completely on board. It's not my
resource, so I'll take all they give me. :) It would be nice to
On Nov 13, 2012, at 21:30 , joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 11/13/12 9:20 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why do you believe we need coordination between service providers to permit
multihomed services to work well? I thought the whole idea was to handle
multiple upstream prefixes
On Nov 14, 2012, at 17:22 , Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
james My point is that it isn't sufficient to handle this problem
james at just the routers. At a minimum, the *hosts* need to be
james told which default router to use with each source prefix.
james
On Nov 14, 2012, at 4:44 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
My point is that it isn't sufficient to handle this problem at just the
routers. At a minimum, the *hosts* need to be told which default router to
use with each source prefix. Right now the only mechanism that comes close to
On 13/11/12 18:33, Randy Turner wrote:
Hi All,
I've been away from the list for awhile, and am trying to catch up --
is there a reference or quick explanation as to why a /64 assigned
to a home network is considered to be potentially constrained
somehow ?
Because no IPv6 network can be
I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can deal with
for now, that a /64 would be big enough - and if this prefix is globally
available on the internet, I think it's much more than the ISPs can get their
heads around, at least for now.
I understand the limitations
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, james woodyatt wrote:
For my part, I have a hard time foreseeing how the expectation that
residential sites will always have more space to assign than a single
/64 subnet is even remotely reasonable. Far too many service providers
are casting into operational concrete
On 11/13/12 9:20 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why do you believe we need coordination between service providers to
permit multihomed services to work well? I thought the whole idea was
to handle multiple upstream prefixes and make sure everything is
routed to the correct ISP?
If
39 matches
Mail list logo
