On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong 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:
> Act
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong 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 or
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 selecti
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 r
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <2ce5a700-eb60-453f-85cf-5e679e94e...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>>
> =20
Actually, gethostbyname returns a linked-list and applications should
try everything in the list until successfully connecting. Most
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:43 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.
not everyone's network requires 'routed' ... wrt the internet.
In message <2ce5a700-eb60-453f-85cf-5e679e94e...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> >>>=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 connectio
>>>
>> 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 =
>> re
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 Wed, 3 Nov 2010 04:14:51 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis 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 of the
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 of the amount of video buffering that took place, and because
the same IPv6 prefixes were
In message , 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 wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
> =20
> >>>=20
> >>> How about algorithmically generating the
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 conne
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:25:34 +1100
Karl Auer 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
> router to star
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
> Owen DeLong 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
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 carr
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 s
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:51:44 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin 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
> >> different, po
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 return
> 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 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 while the WAN goes away and
> manages t
>> 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
>> different, possibly even past the advertised valid time.
>
> That breaks the IPv6 sp
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
Owen DeLong 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 r
>>>
>> 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 routability expectation?
>
Why not just keep a low-overhead central r
On Nov 1, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
> Tim Franklin 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 I
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:46:55 +1030, Mark Smith said:
> How about algorithmically generating these addresses, so that
> they're near unique, instead of having the overhead of a central
> registry, and a global routability expectation?
Go re-read RFC4193, section 3.2.3:
3.2.3. Analysis of the Uni
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
>> > getaddr
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:20:41 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
> > Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> >>> On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wr
oops, I clipped a little too much from the message before replying...
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Smith
wrote:
>
> Permanent connectivity to the global IPv6 Internet, while common,
> should not be essential to being able to run IPv6, and neither should
> PI. All you should need to run IP
> 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
On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would nev
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> > On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin 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?
>
> I'
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 i
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 wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Would it help if ARIN
> 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?
I've seen this last point come up a few times, and I really don't get it.
I
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad 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 Wo
On Oct 31, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message ,
> Chri
> stopher Morrow writes:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:01 PM, George Bonser wrote:
ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
nothing permanent.
>>>
>>> I have a few candidate networks fo
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 th
In message , Chri
stopher Morrow writes:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:01 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> >> ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
> >> nothing permanent.
> >
> > I have a few candidate networks for it. =A0Mostly networks used for
> > clustering or database a
>
> 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 bes
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad 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, either.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:01 PM, George Bonser 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
> "gateway"
>
> 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 bloa
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
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 li
On Oct 31, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman 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.
>>
>> Tha
> 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 smaller chunks of space?
I would probably su
> 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
"gateway". No layer 3 gets routed off that subnet and the only things
ta
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman 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 PI space,
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 p
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Owen DeLong 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 entire n
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 entire network in Provider A's space,
>> you might have more trouble
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 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
> 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 p
In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:21:41PM -0700, George Bonser
wrote:
> 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 bec
>
> 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
> 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 so
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,
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 addres
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 serv
> 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
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
[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 annou
65 matches
Mail list logo
