On 2 Apr 2013, at 14:39, Phil Mayers wrote:
> All,
>
> I had a couple of queries about my recent post asking how we did this, which
> surprised me; I thought it was a pretty tractable problem. We use a (very
> simple) bespoke system, but I was under the impression most people used one
> of th
On 28 Mar 2013, at 00:58, Erik Kline wrote:
>
> P.S. RFC 6866 touches on this issue.
> draft-chown-6man-tokenised-ipv6-identifiers
> touched on it too, but was not adopted so far.
>
> I don't recall seeing that draft go by. Over all it makes sense to me,
> though I think using the word "toke
On 21 May 2013, at 13:26, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 21/05/2013 13:00, Liviu Pislaru wrote:
>> With DHCPv6 i didn't find a way to do that (identify what IPv6 is allocated
>> to which customer) without asking any additional information from the
>> customer (like DUID).
>
> apparently this is a fea
On 21 May 2013, at 14:32, Marco Sommani wrote:
> On 21/mag/2013, at 15:25, Tim Chown wrote:
>
>> On 21 May 2013, at 13:26, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/05/2013 13:00, Liviu Pislaru wrote:
>>>> With DHCPv6 i didn't find a way to do that (i
On 21 May 2013, at 21:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 04:20, Phil Mayers wrote:
>> On 21/05/13 16:58, Tim Chown wrote:
>>
>>> I would suspect in a largeish enterprise that that approach would be
>>> appropriate, as it's likely that all DHCP
On 24 May 2013, at 17:44, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 26/03/13 12:14, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
>>
>> However, the more serious issue we've faced is (presumably broken) hosts
>> who re-generate their privacy addresses EXTREMELY frequently - on the
>> order of minutes. I have one host (a Mac, I believe)
On 30 May 2013, at 07:23, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2013-05-29 23:19, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> I do not mind too much getting packets with a ULA as source address;
>> not perfect but I can live with those packets
>
> Hmm, you say till the day you receive a 100G of spoofed packets... and
On 18 Jul 2013, at 11:29, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 17/07/13 21:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 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
On 19 Jul 2013, at 10:34, Phil Mayers 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 6t
On 21 Aug 2013, at 21:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 21/08/2013 20:06, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:55:48PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>>
>> fixing my sentence to avoid more confusion:
>>
>
On 22 Aug 2013, at 07:11, David Conrad wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 1:06 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they
> delegated responsibility to IANA
>>>
>>> Wait. What?
>>
>> IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IA
On 6 Sep 2013, at 07:23, Henri Wahl wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Whenever you feel yourself wanting to use ULA and DHCP, bear in mind
>> that's almost always the wrong answer. :)
>
> Using dhcpy6d as DHCPv6 server you can do exactly this as it allows to
> give changing randomly generated addresses to cli
On 5 Sep 2013, at 20:52, "Dale W. Carder" wrote:
> Thus spake Dan Wing (dw...@cisco.com) on Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 09:49:12AM
> -0700:
>>
>>> If you're doing SLAAC and create an RA option, then to keep track system,
>>> you'd probably have to configure switches and routers to create a (syslog)
>>
On 6 Sep 2013, at 04:58, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:38 AM, David Magda wrote:
> This would be why I would lean towards an DHCP-based solution: you
> configure certain subnets/prefixes to have "random" addresses assigned and
> others to have MAC-based ones (or 'static-y' re
On 24 Sep 2013, at 23:13, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Ole Troan wrote:
>>
>> you need source address dependent routing (e.g.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-homenet-sadr-01)
>> I think the latest kernel has SADR working. enable
>> CONFIG_IPV6_SUBTREES.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>
> Are we talk
On 25 Sep 2013, at 11:17, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> But I note that the OP is *currently* testing with a single hosts w/ two
>> interfaces, so host-based source address selection is what's in play here,
>> not (s,d) routing.
>
> It's not source address selection if the host is replyi
On 22 Oct 2013, at 06:03, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> IMHO iOS obviously implemented the first part but not the second part ;-)
>
> But, the rapid rate of new RFC 4941 addresses for iOS has another impact
> because network devices cannot anymore limit the number of IPv6 addresses per
> MAC
On 3 Feb 2014, at 11:32, Sam Wilson wrote:
>
> On 3 Feb 2014, at 11:17, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>> On 03/02/2014 11:11, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> Let me de-lurk and make the obvious point that using standard Ethernet
>>> addressing would limit the number of nodes on a single link to 2^47, and
>>>
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:23, James Small wrote:
> Interested in what you’re using to send/receive SMTP over IPv6:
> A) Using (product) from __ (vendor)
> B) Using (service provider or “cloud solution”)
> C) Elected not to implement SMTP over IPv6 at this time because
> ___
On 14 Mar 2014, at 00:50, SM wrote:
> Hi Marco,
> At 16:21 13-03-2014, Marco Sommani wrote:
>> AVM is not alone in its choices: they just do what is suggested in RFC 6092
>> - "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment
>> (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Inter
On 18 Jun 2014, at 10:49, Teerapatr Kittiratanachai
wrote:
> Dear Jens and Mark,
>
> Is there any benefit to assign /112 mask ?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-why64-01
tim
>
> --Te
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 09:46:14 A
On 22 Aug 2014, at 09:09, Daniel Austin wrote:
>
> gmail are still accepting IPv6 mail from my server - most recent message was
> 2 hours ago.
> (they do seem to put most IPv6 transacted mail into spam folders on the
> receiving side however!)
Yes, I’ve had reports of this recently. It’s very
My emails to Cisco people are now bouncing.
It seems the cause is a poor rep on one of our MTAs:
http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/?search_string=2001%3A630%3Ad0%3Af102%3A%3A25e
The DNS reverse seems fine for falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk
But the email bounce (with username deleted) says:
Final-Recipien
ally what's going on.
>
> Changing just one nibble in the host portion of the address makes
> SenderBase score "neutral", so something must be up for that
> particular /128.
>
> When I learn more, will ping you.
>
> --a
>
>
> On 9/24/14, Tim Chown wrote
On 24 Sep 2014, at 18:07, Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko wrote:
> On 9/24/14, Tim Chown wrote:
>> The IPv4 rep for the same MTA is Good.
>>
>> http://www.senderbase.org/lookup/?search_string=152.78.0.0/16
>>
>> Would be interesting to see why the IPv6 rep would be
On 10 Oct 2014, at 15:01, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 10/10/14 14:50, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
>> % telnet -4 www.bt.com 80
>> Trying 62.239.186.73...
>> Connected to www.bt.com.
>> Escape character is '^]'.
>> GET /
>> Connection closed by foreign host.
>>
>>
>> Whatever load balancer that is, it
> On 13 Feb 2015, at 15:49, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes this
> situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44 world, and
> would improve e.g. internet gaming.
Right, and a gamer will want to use something t
> On 14 Apr 2015, at 08:42, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:31:57PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
>> "I told my first customer about Y2k in 1980. He called last week. If
>> anyone of you speaks Cobol the customer is paying $large_amount per
>> hour for fixing his problems."
> On 10 Jun 2015, at 10:20,
> wrote:
>
>> I see that. I don’t think the problem is confined to Samsung or that it can
>> be completed solved in isolation from fixing wireless AP router behaviour.
>> At the edge of the WiFi network I also see the IPv6 connectivity dropping
>> while IPv4 stays
On 10 Jun 2015, at 10:33,
wrote:
>
>
>> I believe our Cisco equipment defaults to 10 minutes (600 seconds). There
>> will also be RAs in response
>> to RS messages.
>
> From the googeling I've done it seems that the defaults span from 180 to 600
> seconds. Have not
> yet found any reccoma
> On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:42, Jeremy Visser wrote:
>
> On 10/06/15 18:23, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> are *all* IPv6 packets blocked, or just multicast packets? I know
>> that a number of devices will drop multicast IPv6 packets.
>
> On that note, some wireless access points have the ability to conv
Hi,
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 08:35, Björn JACKE wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> did anybody experience issues with Comcast blocking IPv6 addresses at SMTP
> level? We used to be able to send mail to comcast servers but since a couple
> of
> days they cancel SMTP connections with a misleading error message:
>
> On 28 Apr 2016, at 06:37, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> On 4/27/2016 12:37 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>>> On 4/26/2016 1:37 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
But let's face it: name-server config is not something that interests a
large group of end users. Any feature which i
> On 9 May 2016, at 10:17, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
> * Erik Kline
>
>> If this router were to send out an RA advertising itself as a default
>> router in this configuration that would probably cause the symptoms
>> you're seeing. That's why I asked for a sample of any RAs seen on
>> such a netw
> On 9 May 2016, at 15:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> wrote:
>
> Because if the ISP doesn’t offer IPv6 service, it can’t (or should not !) be
> IPv6, right ?
It’s not unheard of for an ISP to update customer firmware for v6 support in
advance of deploying connectivity and addressing, with the res
Hi Phil,
> On 18 May 2016, at 14:52, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> On 18/05/16 14:29, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Really, you cannot keep on telling people to finally deploy IPv6, it
>> does not have any effect whatsoever, only their pocket books care and
>> those will only notice when it is too late...
> On 18 May 2016, at 15:11, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 02:06:57PM +, Tim Chown wrote:
>>> I'm specifically not asking about encouraging people who haven't deployed;
>>> rather people who have and who have broken or
Hi,
Was this one of the questions asked in Jordi’s survey? I’m not sure I’ve seen
the results published as yet, but he got a fantastic level of response (over
200 iirc)… Jordi? :)
Tim
> On 20 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
>
> Hi Ragnar and list,
>
> as far as I can tell,
;
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-
> De: en nombre
> de Tim Chown
> Responder a:
> Fecha: martes, 20 de septiembre de 2016, 14:50
> Para: Benedikt Stockebrand , Jordi Palet Martinez
>
> CC: IPv6 Ops list , "Anfinsen, Ragnar"
>
Hi,
> On 14 Dec 2016, at 11:08, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> On 2016-12-14 11:55, Holger Zuleger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just realized that the permanent interface identifier of my MAC has
>> changed after upgrading to OS 10.12 (I guess).
>>
>> The output of ifconfig shows a new "secured" flag at th
On 6 Mar 2017, at 12:26, Mikael Abrahamsson
mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se>> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Gert Doering wrote:
If a CPE has no v6 support, having it available on the DSLAM (in passive mode =
do not start IPv6CP until the client initiates it) will not do harm.
The issue here isn't devices
Hi,
On 23 Mar 2017, at 15:25, Pim van Pelt mailto:p...@ipng.nl>>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Schäfer
mailto:tho...@cis.uni-muenchen.de>> wrote:
https://www.root.cz/clanky/sixxs-vypne-ipv6-tunely-sluzby-ukonci-6-cervna/
The article sums it up quite well, and the author under
Is that not RFC6092?
iirc, that supports e2e IKE+IPSec, for example.
Tim
> On 12 Dec 2017, at 15:03, Kristian McColm
> wrote:
>
> Is it not feasible just as it is for CPE to come with a firewall with a sane
> set of defaults, that the device manufacturer would sell it with a similar
> set
> On 10 May 2019, at 07:43, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 May 2019, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did the
>> guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A lot of that
>> was IPv4 thinking regarding broadca
There are also devices that will try DHCPv6 regardless of the M/O bits. My HP
printer was one.
Tim
On 31 Mar 2020, at 04:29, Brian E Carpenter
mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It seems that the router must be setting both the A bit (use SLAAC) and the M
bit (use DHCPv6). So the h
45 matches
Mail list logo
