Nice article relating to the original subject of the post. I didn't see if
it had be previously posted.
http://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2011/03/trying-to-calculate-ipv6-bgp-table-in.html
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd.
-Jack Herer
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Joe Maimon
On Mar 11, 2011, at 11:22, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
I think there are a lot of people who throw around the SLAAC argument
like it's actually good for something. Do these people know what
SLAAC does? For core networks, it doesn't do anything. For
hosting/datacenter networks and cluster/VPS
On 14 Mar 2011, at 23:30, Ask Bjørn Hansen a...@develooper.com wrote:
Doesn't SLAAC give you automatic MAC address to IP mapping? It'll save you
manually doing that (in an otherwise well controlled environment).
No, it doesn't. On some systems, the mac address is used to create the ipv6
On Mar 14, 2011, at 16:38, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Doesn't SLAAC give you automatic MAC address to IP mapping? It'll save
you manually doing that (in an otherwise well controlled environment).
No, it doesn't. On some systems, the mac address is used to create the ipv6
address, but not on
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
It's the same thing that happens if you toss a /8 on an IPv4 LAN and
start banging away at the ARP table, while expecting all of your
legitimate hosts within that /8 to continue working correctly. We all
know that's
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 04:13:13PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Well, I at least think an option should be a /80, using the 48 bits
of MAC directly. This generates exactly the same collision potential
On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
There's a HUGE difference between IP unnumbered and link-local.
In all honesty, at the macro level, I don't see it; if you wouldn't mind
elaborating on this, I would certainly find it useful.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:51 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
And I say making them /127s may not really make any difference. Say you
make all of those /127s, at some point you *are* going to have a network
someplace that is a /64 that has hosts on it and that one is just as
Jeff Wheeler wrote:
I'm glad SLAAC is an option, but that's all it is, an option. /64
LANs must also be considered optional, and should be considered useful
only when SLAAC is desired.
That also could be optional, automatic host configuration does not
actually require 64 bits, unless
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:38:12 EST, Joe Maimon said:
rfc3927 does not require 64 bits and works sufficiently well wherever it
is employed. SLAAC should be redesigned to be configurable to work with
however many bits are available to it and it should be a standard
feature to turn that knob
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:38:12 EST, Joe Maimon said:
rfc3927 does not require 64 bits and works sufficiently well wherever it
is employed. SLAAC should be redesigned to be configurable to work with
however many bits are available to it and it should be a standard
At 01:33 AM 3/11/2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Frankly, unless you have parallel links, there isn't a definite
need to even number PtoP links for IPv6.
Every thing you need to do with an
In a message written on Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 01:07:15PM -0500,
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:38:12 EST, Joe Maimon said:
rfc3927 does not require 64 bits and works sufficiently well wherever it
is employed. SLAAC should be redesigned to be configurable to work with
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:55 PM, James Stahr st...@mailbag.com wrote:
Is anyone else considering only using link local for their PtoP links? I
realized while deploying our IPv6 infrastructure that OSPFv3 uses the
link-local address in the routing table and than the global address, so if I
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Feel free to explain how SLAAC should work on a /96 with 32 bits of host
address
(or any amount smaller than the 48 bits most MAC addresses provide). Remember
in your answer to deal with collisions.
Why should SLAAC dictate
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:55:33PM -0600, James Stahr wrote:
link-local address. Then I realized, why even assign a global in the
first place? Traceroutes replies end up using the loopback. BGP will
use loopbacks. So is there any obvious harm in this approach that I'm
missing?
Leo Bicknell wrote:
Three people have now mailed me privately saying that DAD does not
provide a way to select a second address if your first choice is not
in use.
So fix that as well while we are at it, how bout it? Its code, not stone.
On 03/11/2011 04:05 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Leo Bicknell wrote:
Three people have now mailed me privately saying that DAD does not
provide a way to select a second address if your first choice is not
in use.
So fix that as well while we are at it, how bout it? Its code, not stone.
So it is
On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:53 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:51 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
And I say making them /127s may not really make any difference. Say you
make all of those /127s, at some point you *are* going to have a network
someplace that is a /64
On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 01:07:15PM -0500,
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:38:12 EST, Joe Maimon said:
rfc3927 does not require 64 bits and works sufficiently well wherever it
is employed. SLAAC
In a message written on Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 04:13:13PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Well, I at least think an option should be a /80, using the 48 bits
of MAC directly. This generates exactly the same collision potential
as today we have
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Yes, you can bring as much of the pain from IPv4 forward into IPv6
as you like. You can also commit many other acts of masochism.
This is the problem with Fundamentalists, such as yourself, Owen.
You think that fixing things
On Mar 12, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Of course, I don't really mean to call Owen a liar, or foolish, or anything
else.
Please don't; even though I disagree with him and agree with you very strongly
on this set of issues, Owen is a smart and straightforward guy, and is simply
As Richard points out, there is *no* reason to configure /64s on
point-to-point links, and there are obvious disadvantages. The RFC
wavers are downright stupid to suggest otherwise.
As for IXP LANs, I predict that one of two things will happen: either
one or more major IXPs will be
On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:51 AM, George Bonser wrote:
If you are a content provider, it doesn't make any difference if they take
down the links between your routers or if they take down the link that your
content farm is on.
Of course, it does - you may have many content farms/instances,
On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:51 AM, George Bonser wrote:
If you are a content provider, it doesn't make any difference if they take
down the links between your routers or if they take down the link that your
content farm is on.
Of
On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you want to be truly anal about it, you can also block packets to
non-existent
addresses on the PtoP links.
Sure, I advocate iACLs to block traffic to p2p links and loopbacks. Still,
it's best not to turn routers into sinkholes in the
On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you want to be truly anal about it, you can also block packets to
non-existent
addresses on the PtoP links.
Sure, I advocate iACLs to block traffic to p2p links and loopbacks.
28 matches
Mail list logo
