valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Beyond that, if there are multiple routers, having a default
router and relying
Yes yes we know, and we've understood this for a quarter century or so. My
disagreement is that even though 99.8% of machines *don't* have multiple
routers, you seem to be
On 1/11/12 9:58 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
A better default could be that IGP will be automatically invoked
if DHCP does not supply a default router.
That's ridiculous. You need some link state to even find a
DHCP server. So, the very idea that DHCP would tell you where
your routers are is
Christian Esteve wrote:
May be there is some light with Multipath TCP:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mptcp-0.pdf
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/charter/
Not bad.
If you can live without UDP and other issues discussed in this bizarre
discussion...
UDP connection, if any,
Ray Soucy wrote:
Well, it seems now you've also added the requirement that we also
dramatically re-write all software that makes use of networking.
Seemingly for the sake of never admitting that you can be wrong.
Thank you for failing to point out where I am wrong.
You seem to think that
On 29 Dec 2011, at 0:16 , Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/28/2011 03:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, this has two issues. First, with RAs there are no risks that
incorrect default information is propagated because the default
gateway itself broadcasts its presence.
Unless you have a
Ray Soucy wrote:
But that is only the case if you let customers have a PI prefix (which
I think is really required in a purist end-to-end model, but for the
sake of argument...).
Multihoming by routing, by the intermediate systems, is against
the end to end principle, which is why it does not
Well, it seems now you've also added the requirement that we also
dramatically re-write all software that makes use of networking.
Seemingly for the sake of never admitting that you can be wrong.
You seem to think that the OSI model is this nice and clean model that
cleanly separates everything
Steven Bellovin wrote:
VRRP? The Router Discovery Protocol (RFC 1256). But given
how much more reliable routers are today than in 1984, I'm
not convinced it's that necessary these days.
VRRP is an absolutely essential protocol in today's Internet. We use
it on every non-bgp customer port.
VRRP is still useful, and for those who find it useful it has been
extended to IPv6 [RFC5798]. Vendors, such as Cisco, have already
begun shipping functional implementations as well it would seem.
There are certainly pieces of IPv6 that will need refinement (and we
will likely see that happen
On 12/30/11 08:47 , Kevin Loch wrote:
It is very common to have different routers (routers, firewalls or
load balancers) on the same vlan with different functions in hosting
environments. It is also sometimes necessary to have multiple default
gateways on the same vlan for load balancing or
On 29 Dec 2011, at 13:46 , Masataka Ohta wrote:
we must assume MTU of 1280B. But, as IPv6 extension headers can
be as lengthy as 1000B or 2000B, no applications are guaranteed
to work over IPv6.
As IP is an unreliable datagram service, there are no guarantees, period.
The presence of
Multihoming with multiple addresses works at transport/application
layer over existing IPv4 and IPv6.
May be there is some light with Multipath TCP:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mptcp-0.pdf
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mptcp/charter/
If you can live without UDP and other issues
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Because that's the Microsoft quality. PERIOD.
We knew it was a crooked game, but it was the only game in town.
* Valdis Kletnieks:
According to the end to end argument, the only possible solution
to the problem, with no complete or correct alternatives, is to
let hosts directly participate in IGP activities.
If it's the only possible spolution, how come 99.8% of the end nodes
do just fine without
(*) If you think I'm going to run an IGP on some of my file servers when
default route to the world out the public 1G interface, and 5 static routes
describing the private 10G network is actually the *desired* semantic because
if anybody re-engineers the 10G net enough to make me change the
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:53:29 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
IGP snooping is not necessary if the host have only one next
hop router.
You don't need an IGP either at that point, no matter what some paper from
years ago tries to assert. :)
pgpOVkl5pWSgU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:14:20 GMT, Florian Weimer said:
Because there's a CPE which acts as a mediator, or the host uses some
dial-up-type protocol which takes care of the IGP interaction.
So what percent of the *CPE* in the average cable-internet or DSL farm *actually
uses* an IGP, and how much
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So what percent of the *CPE* in the average cable-internet or DSL farm
*actually
uses* an IGP,
As I wrote:
If a host receives RAs only from a router, the host can do
nothing other than installing the router as the default
router. If not, however, the host
Sounds like we have one group saying that IPv6 is too complicated and
that all the overhead of IPv6 had resulted in slow adoption.
Meanwhile we have others saying it doesn't have enough functionality,
and should also include IGP.
Seems like IPv6 as it is has struck a balance somewhere in the
Ray Soucy wrote:
Sounds like we have one group saying that IPv6 is too complicated and
that all the overhead of IPv6 had resulted in slow adoption.
Meanwhile we have others saying it doesn't have enough functionality,
and should also include IGP.
Not at all. It is wrong that ND is so
On 12/29/2011 7:59 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Next topic, ethernet is too chaotic and inefficient to deploy and support
mission critical applications in LAN or WAN or data center.
See IEEE1588v2 (Precision Time Protocol), SyncE, and Data center
bridging (DCB) - all attempts to remedy such
... host systems should participate in IGP
We tried that.
It didn't scale well.
The Internet today is very different than the Internet in 1981.
-did you? I thought CLNS with plethora of ip addresses compared to ipv4 was
buried before it could be widely deployed, I was not around back than but
On Dec 29, 2011 6:38 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Sounds like we have one group saying that IPv6 is too complicated and
that all the overhead of IPv6 had resulted in slow adoption.
Meanwhile we have others saying it doesn't have enough functionality,
and should also include IGP.
On Dec 29, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
... host systems should participate in IGP
We tried that.
It didn't scale well.
The Internet today is very different than the Internet in 1981.
-did you? I thought CLNS with plethora of ip addresses compared to ipv4 was
buried
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
IGP snooping is not necessary if the host have only one next
hop router.
You don't need an IGP either at that point, no matter what some paper from
years ago tries to assert. :)
IGP is the way for routers advertise their existence,
though, in this simplest
On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:30 16PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
IGP snooping is not necessary if the host have only one next
hop router.
You don't need an IGP either at that point, no matter what some paper from
years ago tries to assert. :)
IGP is the way for
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:30:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
IGP is the way for routers advertise their existence,
though, in this simplest case, an incomplete proxy of
relying on a default router works correctly.
Which is sufficient for 99.8% of hosts out there.
Beyond that, if there are
In message 68424.1325204...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:30:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
IGP is the way for routers advertise their existence,
though, in this simplest case, an incomplete proxy of
relying on a default router works
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:12:43 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
Well I'd like to be able to plug in the cable router and the DSL
router at home and have it all just work. Just because it is 0.2%
today doesn't mean that it will be 0.2% in the future. As home
users get more and more dependent on the
On 12/29/2011 8:12 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Well I'd like to be able to plug in the cable router and the DSL
router at home and have it all just work.
Well, that's not too far removed from the plugged-in laptop with the
wireless still active. Toss-up which one wins default route.
What would
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Considering that the reason to have multiple routers
should be for redundancy, there is no point to use
one of them as the default router.
VRRP? The Router Discovery Protocol (RFC 1256). But given
how much more reliable routers are today than in 1984, I'm
not
On Dec 29, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
The real-world case for host routing (IMHO) is a server with a public
interface, an administrative interface, and possibly a third path for
data backups (maybe four if it's VMware/VMotion too). Unless the
non-public interfaces
In message 69748.1325208...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:12:43 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
Well I'd like to be able to plug in the cable router and the DSL
router at home and have it all just work. Just because it is 0.2%
today doesn't
OK, this is getting ridiculous.
Let's assume that we have a model where host systems receive the
global routing table from service providers. The stated reason for
this is so that they could make their own routing decisions when
multi-homed environment. Presumably with each ISP connected to a L2
Just to clear up a few misconceptions:
begin explanation current situation
Router advertisements are exactly what the name suggests, routers advertising
their presence. The first function of router advertisements is to tell hosts
where the routers are, so the hosts can install a
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Just to clear up a few misconceptions:
Only to add yet another misconception without any clearing up?
Router advertisements are exactly what the name suggests,
routers advertising their presence.
The first function of router advertisements is to tell
hosts where
2011/12/28 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
Granted that the notion of default router of IPv4 is no better
than that of IPv6.
Please present a reasonable alternative.
--
Ray Soucy
Epic Communications Specialist
Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526
Networkmaine, a Unit of the University
Ray Soucy wrote:
Granted that the notion of default router of IPv4 is no better
than that of IPv6.
Please present a reasonable alternative.
According to the end to end argument, the only possible solution
to the problem, with no complete or correct alternatives, is to
let hosts directly
On 28 Dec 2011, at 13:26 , Ray Soucy wrote:
Granted that the notion of default router of IPv4 is no better
than that of IPv6.
Please present a reasonable alternative.
Obviously reducing down the entire DFZ to a single default route is a bad case
of premature optimization, which we all know
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Granted that the notion of default router of IPv4 is no better
than that of IPv6.
Please present a reasonable alternative.
Obviously reducing down the entire DFZ to a single default route
is a bad case of premature optimization,
Stop confusing default router
2011/12/28 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
According to the end to end argument, the only possible solution
to the problem, with no complete or correct alternatives, is to
let hosts directly participate in IGP activities.
See the paper by Saltzer et. al.
So your entire
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:56:19 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
According to the end to end argument, the only possible solution
to the problem, with no complete or correct alternatives, is to
let hosts directly participate in IGP activities.
That's only for hosts that are actively trying to
On 12/28/2011 03:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, this has two issues. First, with RAs there are no risks that
incorrect default information is propagated because the default
gateway itself broadcasts its presence.
Unless you have a malicious user on the network in which case all
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 18:16, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 12/28/2011 03:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, this has two issues. First, with RAs there are no risks that
incorrect default information is propagated because the default
gateway itself broadcasts its
facts deleted
Second, publishing specifications, implementing them and waiting for
users to adopt them takes a very, very long time. For DHCPv6 support,
the time from first publication (2003) until wide availability (2011)
has been 8 years. Are we ready to live in a half-baked world for
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
According to the end to end argument, the only possible solution
to the problem, with no complete or correct alternatives, is to
let hosts directly participate in IGP activities.
That's only for hosts that are actively trying to communicate on more than one
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 12/28/2011 03:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Second, publishing specifications, implementing them and waiting for
users to adopt them takes a very, very long time. For DHCPv6 support,
the time from first publication
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:51:00 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Quick sanity check on the hypothesis: Does Windows ship with an IGP enabled
by
default?
Sanity check with Windows? Are you sure?
It's a quick sanity check to this statment:
According to the end to
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Quick sanity check on the hypothesis: Does Windows ship with an IGP enabled
by
default?
Sanity check with Windows? Are you sure?
It's a quick sanity check to this statment:
According to the end to end argument, the only possible solution
to the
49 matches
Mail list logo
