On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT
On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 04:14:51 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
I've had a recent experience of this. Some IPv6 CPE I was
testing had a fault where it dropped out and recovered every 2 minutes
- a transient network fault. I was watching a youtube video over IPv6.
Because
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 09:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
About the only hack I can see that *might* make sense would be that home
CPE does NOT honour the upstream lifetimes if upstream connectivity is
lost, but instead keeps the prefix alive on very
massive snip
Actually, gethostbyname returns a linked-list and applications should
try everything in the list until successfully connecting. Most do.
However, the long timeouts in the connection attempt process make
that a less than ideal solution. (In fact, this is one of the main =
In message 2ce5a700-eb60-453f-85cf-5e679e94e...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
massive snip
=20
Actually, gethostbyname returns a linked-list and applications should
try everything in the list until successfully connecting. Most do.
=20
However, the long timeouts in the connection
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be
used with PA.
not everyone's network requires 'routed' ... wrt the internet.
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 2ce5a700-eb60-453f-85cf-5e679e94e...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
massive snip
=20
Actually, gethostbyname returns a linked-list and applications should
try everything in the list until successfully connecting. Most do.
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be
used with PA.
It's very easy to get PIv6 routed
On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
How about algorithmically generating these addresses, so that
they're near unique, instead of having the overhead of a central
registry, and a global
About the only hack I can see that *might* make sense would be that
home CPE does NOT honour the upstream lifetimes if upstream
connectivity is lost, but instead keeps the prefix alive on very
short lifetimes until upstream connectivity returns.
Yep, that's the hack I was getting at.
As a
On 11/02/2010 01:26 PM, Tim Franklin wrote:
About the only hack I can see that *might* make sense would be that
home CPE does NOT honour the upstream lifetimes if upstream
connectivity is lost, but instead keeps the prefix alive on very
short lifetimes until upstream connectivity returns.
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:51:44 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Your home gateway that talks to your internet connection can either
get it via DHCP-PD or static configuration. Either way, it could
(should?) be set up to hold the prefix until it gets told something
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 23:23 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
Prefix lifetimes don't work that way - there is no such thing as a
flash renumbering.
The lifetimes are reset with every RA the nodes see. If I reconfigure my
router to start sending out RAs every N seconds, it will take a a
maximum of N
On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 10:51 +, Tim Franklin wrote:
That breaks the IPv6 spec. Preferred and valid lifetimes are there
for a reason.
And end-users want things to Just Work. The CPE vendor that finds a
hack that lets the LAN carry on working
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
How about algorithmically generating these addresses, so that
they're near unique, instead of having the
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:25:34 +1100
Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 23:23 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
Prefix lifetimes don't work that way - there is no such thing as a
flash renumbering.
The lifetimes are reset with every RA the nodes see. If I reconfigure my
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 09:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
About the only hack I can see that *might* make sense would be that home
CPE does NOT honour the upstream lifetimes if upstream connectivity is
lost, but instead keeps the prefix alive on very short lifetimes until
upstream connectivity
In message cc14fcd0-1924-425a-8879-0c1fa6ade...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
=20
=20
He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
=20
=20
How about
Define long prefix length. Owen has been fairly forceful in his
advocacy of /48s at every site. Is this too long a prefix? Should
peers only except /32s and shorter?
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:12 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On 01 Nov 2010 10:08, Jason Iannone wrote:
Define long prefix length. Owen has been fairly forceful in his
advocacy of /48s at every site. Is this too long a prefix? Should
peers only except /32s and shorter?
One assumes unpaid peers will accept prefixes up to the maximum length
the RIR
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Surely your not saying we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
that the other options just don't make sense so that all residential
users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't
break?
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45
On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
If Woody had gone straight to
This isn't to do with anything low level like RAs. This is about
people proposing every IPv6 end-site gets PI i.e. a default free zone
with multiple billions of routes instead of using ULAs for internal,
stable addressing. It's as though they're not aware that the majority
of end-sites on the
oops, I clipped a little too much from the message before replying...
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
Permanent connectivity to the global IPv6 Internet, while common,
should not be essential to being able to run
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:20:41 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct
Hi,
2) ULA brings with it (as do any options that include multiple
addresses) host-stack complexity and address-selection issues... 'do I
use ULA here or GUA when talking to the remote host?'
There's an app for that (or rather a library routine called
getaddrinfo() and an optional
On Nov 1, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Surely your not saying we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
that the other options just don't make sense so that all residential
users get PI so that if
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:21:41 PDT, George Bonser said:
With v6, while changing prefixes is easy for some gear, other gear is
not so easy. If you number your entire network in Provider A's space,
you might have more trouble renumbering into Provider B's space because
now you have to change
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 7:22 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:21:41 PDT, George Bonser said:
With v6, while changing prefixes is easy for some gear, other gear is
not so easy. If you number your
On 10/31/2010 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this problem,
either.
And he can justify PI when he first deploys IPv6 with a single provider
under which policy? (Assume he is in the ARIN region and that his IPv4
space is currently
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/31/2010 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you have PI space, changing providers can be even easier and you can
leave
multiple providers running in parallel.
That's a big IF, given the above. He doesn't qualify for
On Oct 31, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/31/2010 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you have PI space, changing providers can be even easier and you can
leave
multiple providers running in parallel.
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have
happened...
Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this
problem, either.
ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Would it help if ARIN's policies were changed to allow anyone and everyone
to obtain PI space directly from them (for the appropriate fee, of course),
and
then it was left up to the operating community to decide whether or not to
route the
Seems to me the options are:
1) PI, resulting in no renumbering costs, but RIR costs and routing
table bloat
2) PA w/o ULA, resulting in full site renumbering cost, no routing
table bloat
3) PA w/ ULA, resulting in externally visible-only renumbering cost,
no
routing table bloat
In
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:01 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
nothing permanent.
I have a few candidate networks for it. Mostly networks used for
clustering or database access where they are just a flat LAN with no
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have
happened...
Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this
problem,
why not just use link-local then? eventually you'll have to connect
that network with another one, chances of overlap (if the systems
support real revenue) are likely too high to want to pay the
renumbering costs, so even link-local isn't a 100% win :(
globally-unique is really the best
In message aanlktimsb6uj-jpoglg08q-rzdub-+c9c5kmzcktq...@mail.gmail.com, Chri
stopher Morrow writes:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:01 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
nothing permanent.
I have a few candidate
On Oct 31, 2010, at 12:12 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Would it help if ARIN's policies were changed to allow anyone and everyone
to obtain PI space directly from them (for the appropriate fee, of course),
and
then it was left up to the operating
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to indicate a topic change! ;) ]
On 2010-10-21 18:29, Allen Smith wrote:
[... well described situation about having two/multiple IPv4 upstreams,
enabling dual-stack at both, but wanting to failover between them
without doing NATv6 ...]
Short answer: you
Jeroen Massar (jeroen) writes:
Now the problem with such a setup is the many locations where you
actually are hardcoding the IP addresses/prefixes into: firewalls, DNS
etc. That is the hard part to solve, especially when these services are
managed by other parties.
And probably the
From: Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Allen Smith
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 —
Unique local addresses)
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to indicate a topic change! ;) ]
Short answer: you announce
On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
Jeroen Massar (jeroen) writes:
Now the problem with such a setup is the many locations where you
actually are hardcoding the IP addresses/prefixes into: firewalls, DNS
etc. That is the hard part to solve, especially when these services are
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:35 PM, George Bonser wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Allen Smith
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 —
Unique local addresses)
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy
In message 20101021170258.ge61...@macbook.catpipe.net, Phil Regnauld writes:
Jeroen Massar (jeroen) writes:
Now the problem with such a setup is the many locations where you
actually are hardcoding the IP addresses/prefixes into: firewalls, DNS
etc. That is the hard part to solve,
How do you do that for IPv4... There's nothing new here. The failure
modes
are identical and your NAT box in IPv4 doesn't protect you from this
any
better.
With IPv4 I don't generally use two sets of prefixes for the same
traffic from the same site to the Internet unless there is some sort
Well have the hosts update their own addresses in the DNS. That's
one of the problems addressed. There are at least two commercial
OSs which will do this for you.
Mark
But they sometimes don't check to make sure there aren't stale DNS entries for
their hostname before they add the new
From: Leo Bicknell
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 7:53 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6
fc00::/7 -Unique local addresses)
What makes it all possible is the same prefix length internally and
from all providers. It's a reason why /48
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Leo Bicknell wrote:
If you could number your internal network out of some IPv6 space
(possibly 1918 style, possibly not), probably a /48, and then get
from your two (or more) upstreams /48's of PA space you could do
1:1 NAT. No PAT, just pure address translation, 1:1.
53 matches
Mail list logo
