Looking for contributors

There's an effort to write a free, open-source, on-line book for the benefit of IPv6 practitioners. Who's going to write it? IPv6 practitioners. You. https://github.com/becarpenter/book6 now has a (very small) amount of general text, but we're waiting for more collaborators and more text from

Re: Multiaddressing Intent and Practicality

Hi Jason, You might consider taking this discussion also to v6...@ietf.org. I guarantee you would get a full set of answers to choose from ;-). More below... On 06-Aug-22 00:16, Jason Iannone wrote: This is a question about multihomed systems, systems attached to multihomed networks, or

Re: Prefix delegation to sub nets

t;>> Is HNCP available for the various Linux distros? >>> If not, it has to be PD, I think. >>> >>> Regards, >>>Brian Carpenter >>> (via tiny screen & keyboard) >>> >>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021, 20:51 Ole Troan, wrote: >>>&g

Re: Prefix delegation to sub nets

10:39, Doug Hardie wrote: >> On 27 June 2021, at 14:07, Brian E Carpenter >> wrote: >> >> Please don't look at ancient drafts. Look at the homenet architecture RFC: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368 > > I went looking when I saw the date on the draf

Re: Prefix delegation to sub nets

Please don't look at ancient drafts. Look at the homenet architecture RFC: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368 Definitively, using any prefix longer than /64 *will not work*. The /64 has been carved in stone for many years; that's *why* you get a /48 or /56 from the ISP. > The B router

Comcast IPv6 routing

Anybody here from Comcast who might be interested by a strange v6 (and v4) route within the USA? Contact me off list. Regards Brian Carpenter

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

At the risk of repeating myself, if ops people like this approach then they need to engage in constructive discussion of it in the IETF. No need for a travel budget, especially now. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 Regards Brian On 02-Apr-20 23:10, otr...@employees.org wrote: >>

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

On 31-Mar-20 23:17, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 31/Mar/20 12:09, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > >> Note that there have been multiple requests for DHCPv6 to do this but >> every attempt has been shot down. > > Yep - thankfully, we have an option. > > Operating two address assignment protocols is

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

It seems that the router must be setting both the A bit (use SLAAC) and the M bit (use DHCPv6). So the host is obeying both. There's no real harm in it, in most circumstances. Fixing the ambiguity about what hosts should do about this has often been discussed in the IETF but there's never

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

et up, even when my ISP has a glitch and I get flash-renumbered, as happened earlier this week. Regards Brian > > > > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 4:02 PM > To: Matthew Huff ; Nick Hilliard ; Michael > Sturtz >

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

On 26-Oct-19 04:19, Matthew Huff wrote: > This is part of one of the many reasons corporate acceptance of IPv6 is so > low. The IPv6 design appears to be oriented toward residential, ISP, and > public wifi usages, with little care to corporate needs. Not only is static > IPs desired, but in

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

On 25-Oct-19 01:07, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 23/10/19 14:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 24-Oct-19 03:57, David Forrest wrote: >>> My ULA is a /48 while Charter Spectrum only gives me a /64.  Then I lose my >>> network info. >> >> Huh? You will simpl

ULA [was: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1]

On 24-Oct-19 03:57, David Forrest wrote: > My ULA is a /48 while Charter Spectrum only gives me a /64.  Then I lose my > network info. Huh? You will simply use a /64 within the ULA /48. However, you should only generate the ULA prefix once and store it in stable storage; that should be a

ULAs [was: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1]

Please don't send mail with useless "Digest" subject headers. Michael, sorry to be blunt but you seem to have misunderstood ULAs. My ULA prefix, for example, is fd63:45eb:dc14::/48 but my CE assigns addresses in the subnet fd63:45eb:dc14::/64. If I ran a routed network at home, the routers

Atlas probes and 6to4 [Re: IPv6 ingress filtering]

On 18-May-19 08:46, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote on 17/05/2019 21:06: >> And surely the question is "What would produce the most help desk calls?". >> Filtering something that is presumably working for its remaining users >> might not be a go

Re: IPv6 ingress filtering

d :::ffff doesn't look much like a pseudo-random temporary interface identifier. Maybe it's never a good idea to look underneath the hood of a VPN. Brian > > Seems reasonable to me. > > Thanks, > > Kurt > >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>>

Re: IPv6 ingress filtering

On 18-May-19 06:12, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:55:33PM -0500, David Farmer wrote: >> A few questions; >> >> Are you generating ICMPv6 toward non-2002::/16 sources for traffic destined >> to 2002::/16? >> Are you generating ICMPv6 toward 2002::/16 source for traffic

Re: IPv6 ingress filtering

On 17-May-19 06:34, David Farmer wrote: > > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:20 PM Sander Steffann > wrote: > > Hi David, > > > While I happen to agree with you 2002::/16 SHOULD NOT be filtered, and > RFC 7526 is quite clear that 2002::/16 is still valid.

Re: IPv6 ingress filtering

On 15-May-19 04:22, Amos Rosenboim wrote: > Let me just clarify few points: > The suggested filter is not for the protocol, but for the 2002::/16 address > space. Sure. But this is quite complicated; more complicated than I imagined when we invented 6to4. I really suggest reading

Re: Implementation/deployment wiki for IPv6?

Thanks to Jens Link, there is the very beginning of such a wiki at https://wiki.ask-for-ipv6.net/ Please read, register and contribute! Regards Brian Carpenter On 21-Feb-19 15:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, > > Is anybody aware of a general implementation/deployment wiki

Re: Link-local and ACLs

On 25/07/2017 19:07, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:41:06AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Why would you ever do it for normal traffic? > > I'm not sure that was a question asked in this thread :-) > >> And why would ACLs b

Re: Link-local and ACLs

On 25/07/2017 09:10, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Brian E Carpenter > >> So, I'm not aware of any realistic case where this happens, or any >> reason for it. > > As Gert already pointed out: Neighbour Discovery. Well yes, like ARP. But that's the exception that proves t

Re: SixXS shutting down 2017-06-06

Below... On 24/03/2017 06:39, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2017-03-23 18:28, David Farmer wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote >> >>

Re: Fwd: SixXS shutting down 2017-06-06

As for the thanks, let me start here: *many* thanks. > We note the trend of traffic is on a downwards trajectory since H2 2015. I can see that, although I'd have been tempted to wait until it was closer to zero (I think 6bone traffic was negligible when it went off, and 6to4 traffic was

Re: default IID mechanism (was Re: macos Sierra with CGA address?)

On 16/12/2016 00:12, Holger Zuleger wrote: > >>> My info is, to set >>> sysctl -w net.inet6.send.opstate=0 >>> to go back to mac address based eui64, but didn't checked it. >> >> Please don't resort to eui64. That's a bad idea. See RFC7721 and RFC707 > Hmm, yes but from an operating view... >

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 15/10/2016 00:57, Holger Zuleger wrote: >> If the delegated prefix changes, you'll be simply postponing the local >> communication failure, not prevent it. > Only if the new prefix is different to the old one. > >> The last year has convinced me that the best user experience is >> achieved by

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016 at 9:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This creates a tricky problem for homenet, I think, but I agree that my CE >> is doing what that requirement says. This also creates a truly annoying >> coding problem for me, which I won'

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

). Thanks Brian On 13/10/2016 16:55, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > The linux host is correctly not adding a default route because the RA > specifies a router lifetime of 0, likely due to RFC 7084 requirement G-4. > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.c

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

I'll send you the RA packet off-list. Brian On 13/10/2016 14:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 13/10/2016 13:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter < >> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> But what it says (

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 13/10/2016 13:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But what it says (before I install the correct default route) is >> >> fd00::/64 via fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 dev wlp

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 13/10/2016 13:05, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ::/0 :: !n -1 1 137 >> lo >> > > I think !n means

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

Hi Jeroen, On 13/10/2016 12:16, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2016-10-13 00:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > [..] >> Kernel IPv6 routing table >> DestinationNext Hop Flag Met Ref Use If >> fd00::/64 fe80::be05:43ff:fe8

Re: MTU/MSS testing IPv6

On 26/05/2016 00:33, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:30:50AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I've run into a scenario where a website doesn't seem to be listening to >> PTB. I can reach them just fine from an MTU1500 clean IPv6 connection, but >> if I reach

Re: v6 naming and shaming - *.europa.eu

On 19/05/2016 15:46, Pete Mundy wrote: >> On 19/05/2016, at 2:10 pm, Mike Taylor wrote: >> >> I had the opportunity to set up a (small) ISP from scratch, so I just >> did it, and made everything native Ipv4 and IPv6 from day one. >> > > You get credit for your website

Re: push apps failing in Android until you disable IPv6

On 14/05/2016 04:02, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson > wrote: > >> My guess is that any device which sees this, will install default IPv6 >> route but will only have link local addresses on the interface, thus there >> is no source

Re: ip switching from ipv4 to ipv6

On 30/04/2016 01:16, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, re wrote: > >> but is there any explanation to the repeated changing of the ip address from >> ipv4 to ipv6? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs > > If network conditions change then IPv4 or IPv6 might be

Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

Ted, On 25/04/2016 07:55, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Why Android doesn't support DHCPv6 is detailed here: > > https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=32621#c53 Yes, we all know Lorenzo's opinion, and the follow-up comments there give the opposing opinions. > > They say to use SLAAC

Re: Fwd: Curious situation - not urgent, but I'd like to know more

Kurt, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6343 explains the various 6to4 breakage modes. It only works outside all IPv4 NATs, so is guaranteed to fail with a CGN in place. Regards Brian On 06/03/2016 12:52, Kurt Buff wrote: > Sorry - meant to reply to the list... > > > In-line... > > On Fri,

Re: Curious situation - not urgent, but I'd like to know more

I would suggest: netsh interface ipv6 6to4 set state state=disabled You don't want to go near 6to4 these days (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7526). Use real IPv6 or no IPv6. Regards Brian (co-author of 6to4, but that was 15 years ago) On 05/03/2016 13:06, Kurt Buff wrote: > Reviving an old

Re: Curious situation - not urgent, but I'd like to know more

On 21/12/2015 03:28, Marc Luethi wrote: > Hi all > > I suggest to investigate source address selection on the client side, > while closely following name resolution (assuming this is similar to > Windows 2012R2's DA implementation, DNS64 is supposed to be at work, here) > and keeping an eye on

Re: Curious situation - not urgent, but I'd like to know more

On 21/12/2015 07:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 21/12/2015 03:28, Marc Luethi wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I suggest to investigate source address selection on the client side, >> while closely following name resolution (assuming this is similar to >> Windows 20

Re: [v6ops] Why operators filter IPv6 packets with extension headers?

On 01/09/2015 22:06, Fernando Gont wrote: > Hi, Eric, > > Thanks so much for the timely feedback! Please find some comments inline > (more in a subsequent email)... > > > On 09/01/2015 05:42 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: ... >> - the processing of HbH would kill the Internet of course (at

Re: Google no longer returning AAAA records?

On 17/04/2015 15:17, Erik Kline wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: On 16/04/15 01:57, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: For the avoidance of mystery: Google performs measurements of IPv6 connectivity and latency on an ongoing basis. The Google DNS servers

Re: Google no longer returning AAAA records?

I suggest checking if any of your affected users have broken 6to4 setups, and that you are applying the relevant mitigations in RFC 6343. MTU size issues and high latency have also both been mentioned as possible reasons for the mysterious blacklist. It has also been said that

Re: Cost of IPv6 for IT operations team

The 20% figure is based on an IETF document Which one? We can fix that if people think it's wrong. (This comes just too late for yesterday's v6ops meeting at the IETF in Dallas.) Regards Brian

Re: Cost of IPv6 for IT operations team

, Christophe BERENGUER Consultant Fixe : +33 (0)1 49 03 85 86 christophe.bereng...@solucom.fr solucom Tour Franklin : 100 - 101 terrasse Boieldieu 92042 Paris La Défense Cedex De : Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com Envoyé : vendredi 27 mars

Re: Cost of IPv6 for IT operations team

On 26/03/2015 22:04, BERENGUER Christophe wrote: Hello everybody, I work for a consulting firm. For a client, I would like to estimate the work overload for IT operations team to deploy IPv6 dual stack and for day to day operations. On the internet, I have found an estimation

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

On 07/12/2014 09:08, Ca By wrote: On Saturday, December 6, 2014, Yannis Nikolopoulos d...@otenet.gr wrote: Hello, IPv4-only CGN was never on the table to begin with. DS-lite doesn't seem to scale so well, that's why we were focusing on the more stateless approaches. We have I hear

Re: Routingproblems - Deutsche Telekom?

It works nicely from NZ (the ping time is typical), but I'm seeing a different address: C:\windows\system32ping www.linkedin.com Pinging pop-ela4-alpha.www.linkedin.com [2620:109:c00d:100::c765:a381] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 2620:109:c00d:100::c765:a381: time=201ms Reply from

Re: [v6ops] Who is stilll running 6to4 relays (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt)

With the same Bcc: Internet service providers SHOULD filter out routes to 192.88.99.1. It is pretty clear enough to me (as document editor) that there is no consensus in the v6ops WG for this sentence, which was added after some earlier discussion in the WG. The final consensus has to

Re: Teredo sunset - did it happen?

I said: But if the client has the old RFC 3483 policy table, :::0:0/96 has the lowest precedence so Teredo would win over IPv4, which is a Bad Thing. There isn't much to be done about that unless the user has netsh skills. s/3483/3484/ Brian On 18/11/2014 13:01, Brian E Carpenter

Re: SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as spam since 20140818

On 03/11/2014 22:38, Bjørn Mork wrote: ... It just seems so pointless. The dummy names will be longer than the address and will contain the exact same information. Quite. It's idiotic. And if I was a paranoid mail operator, I would put in some heuristic code to identify such dummy names and

Re: 6to4 in Internet aaaa records

On 03/10/2014 15:58, Ca By wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jeroen Massar jer...@massar.ch wrote: On 2014-10-02 22:37, Ca By wrote: [..] Yes, i think .gov requires records. So it looks like DNS admins are generating records that ultimately break connectivity. Back to my

Re: SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as spam since 20140818

On 24/08/2014 09:20, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Aug 23, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Actually I think you should quibble. The issue isn't bad software used by intermediaries, it's that by design DMARC p=reject breaks a very common model used by intermediaries. Whether

Re: SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as spam since 20140818

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Dan Wing wrote: On Aug 22, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Matthew Huff mh...@ox.com wrote: Currently it is not feasible to do ipv6 reputation filtering. IPv4 reputation filtering is a big part of most anti-spam engines, so without it, SPF / DKIM of domain reputation is the best

Re: IPv6 packets with HBH

...@otenet.gr wrote: On 07/04/2014 11:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 05/07/2014 04:05, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: hello, how do people handle packets with HBH present? Since their use is a potential attack vector, do people rate-limit them? I can't seem to find some sort of best practice

Re: IPv6 packets with HBH

On 06/07/2014 01:27, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: On 07/04/2014 11:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 05/07/2014 04:05, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: hello, how do people handle packets with HBH present? Since their use is a potential attack vector, do people rate-limit them? I can't seem to find

Re: IPv6 packets with HBH

On 05/07/2014 04:05, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote: hello, how do people handle packets with HBH present? Since their use is a potential attack vector, do people rate-limit them? I can't seem to find some sort of best practice on the issue I have the impression that they are simply ignored in

Re: So, time for some real action?

On 07/02/2014 04:48, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 06/02/2014 14:51, Dick Visser wrote: http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/12/campaign-turn-off-ipv4-on-6-june-2014-for-one-day/ This is a terrible idea which will cause IPv6 to be associated with gratuitous breakage. That was my

Re: Question on DHCPv6 address assignment

It's also worth noting that the old presumption that MAC-based interface identifiers are normal and anything else is strange is obsolete. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-ug-06 which is approved in the RFC queue already and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-00

Question about IPAM tools for v6

Hi, We're working on the next version of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-6man-why64 Can anyone say whether existing IP Address Management tools that support IPv6 have built-in assumptions or dependencies on the /64 subnet prefix length, or whether they simply don't care about subnet

Re: Question about IPAM tools for v6

On 30/01/2014 11:19, Cricket Liu wrote: Hi Mark. On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Mark Boolootian boo...@ucsc.edu wrote: Can anyone say whether existing IP Address Management tools that support IPv6 have built-in assumptions or dependencies on the /64 subnet prefix length, or whether they

Re: Anybody else unable to reach sixxs.net?

Thanks to those who replied on and off list. It seems to be a local routing hole so I have contacted the ISP. Regards Brian On 18/01/2014 16:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote: C:\windows\system32tracert www.sixxs.net Tracing route to nginx.sixxs.net [2620:0:6b0:a:250:56ff:fe99:78f7] over

Re: Reaching google.com using Chrome

On 14/01/2014 10:21, Justin Krejci wrote: Also when troubleshooting HTTP connectivity in general but can be really help when dealing with a transition from IPv4 to IPv6 if you install the browser extension IPvFoo for Chrome (IPvFox for Firefox) it can take out a significantly complicated

Re: Best practice - dual stack DNS?

What about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6106 ? Brian On 22/10/2013 01:24, Roger Wiklund wrote: Hi. I'm setting up a wireless guest network with dual stack. Private IPv4 via DHCP and public IPv6 via SLAAC. At first had the client first hop IPv6 routing on the WAN CPE using SLAAC and

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

Re: teredo.ipv6.microsoft.com off?

On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote: ... Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details (If you accept the premise that you have to work around being jailed behind an IPv4 NAT) put into the protocol. One

Re: same link-local address on multiple interface and OSPFv3

On 29/06/2013 22:18, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: Hi Phil and list, [Using the same link-local address on multiple (VLAN) interfaces] Many routers wouldn't let you do that in IPv4. Cisco IOS doesn't, for example: IPv4 doesn't have link-local addresses or anything similar (unless you want

Re: Point-to-point /64

On 03/06/2013 10:06, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: 2013/6/2 Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com: I'm not sure about other switches, but for the Catalyst 3750/3750G, it means some quirks with IPv6 ACLs. The 3750/3750D can do ACLs on full /128's, but only if the lower 64 bits are EUI64