On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 23:44 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> The whole concept of gratuitous arp is strictly IPv4.
Isn't an unsolicited neighbour advertisement pretty much the same thing?
Regards, K.
--
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.
On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 7/17/12, Karl Auer wrote:
> [snip
>> I'm not sure I follow the logic there. If the anycast router changes the
>> packet will be resent to the new subnet anycast router eventually
>> (assuming some layer cares enough about the packet to resend
On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Op 16 jul 2012, om 18:34 heeft valdis.kletni...@vt.edu het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said:
>>> ---That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be
>>> there
>>> if there
On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:31:42 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
>> Think HA pairs in Pittsburgh, Dallas, and San Jose.
>>
>> Now imagine each has different upstream connectivity and the backbone
>> network connecting all the corporate sites li
On Jul 16, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 23:38 -0400, Matt Addison wrote:
>> Oliver wrote:
>>> Additionally, as an alternative to RAs, you can simply point default
>>> at the all-routers anycast address.
>>
>> Wouldn't this result in duplicate packets leaving your n
On 7/17/12, Karl Auer wrote:
[snip
> I'm not sure I follow the logic there. If the anycast router changes the
> packet will be resent to the new subnet anycast router eventually
> (assuming some layer cares enough about the packet to resend it). The
> "last known hardware address" doesn't matter a
Op 17 jul 2012, om 04:56 heeft Grant Ridder het volgende geschreven:
> If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
> through?
Because it could be/is a stateful firewall and the backup will drop the
traffic. (FreeBSD CARP)
Cheers,
Seth
>
> -Grant
>
> On Monday,
Hi,
Op 16 jul 2012, om 18:34 heeft valdis.kletni...@vt.edu het volgende geschreven:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said:
>> ---That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be there
>> if there weren't enough customers asking for it. Are all the customers naive
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 00:10 -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Just to reaffirm that.Rfc 4291 states packets sent to the
> subnet-router anycast will be delivered to one router on the subnet.
> [...]
> But what about packets with a destination address on another network
> and trying to use the anycast
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:31:42 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> Think HA pairs in Pittsburgh, Dallas, and San Jose.
>
> Now imagine each has different upstream connectivity and the backbone
> network connecting all the corporate sites lives inside those firewalls.
>
> The real solution to this is to move t
On 7/16/12, Karl Auer wrote:
> I think Oliver meant the subnet router anycast address.
> Anycast gets you to one-of-many. The routers work out which of them is
Just to reaffirm that.Rfc 4291 states packets sent to the
subnet-router anycast will be delivered to one router on the subnet.
Tha
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 23:38 -0400, Matt Addison wrote:
> Oliver wrote:
> > Additionally, as an alternative to RAs, you can simply point default
> > at the all-routers anycast address.
>
> Wouldn't this result in duplicate packets leaving your network if
> there were more than 1 router listening
Think HA pairs in Pittsburgh, Dallas, and San Jose.
Now imagine each has different upstream connectivity and the backbone
network connecting all the corporate sites lives inside those firewalls.
The real solution to this is to move the backbone outside of the firewalls
and connect the internal ne
You could try this:
If you give a /48 to each site, then assign the sites primary and backup
firewalls.
Aggregate the /48s into larger blocks by primary firewall.
Aggregate the primary firewall bocks into larger backup firewall aggregates.
Advertise the firewall-specific aggregates and the le
On Jul 16, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:04 -0400, Lee wrote:
>> Each site gets a /48. Even the ones with less than 200 people.
>> [...]
>> Which is *boring*. Nothing novel, no breaking out of "IPv4 think"
>> aside from massively wasting address space.
>
> It's
On Jul 16, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Lee wrote:
> On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being
>> able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
>> conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
>
> NAT is good for getting
On 7/16/12, -Hammer- wrote:
> hurdles. Example? HSRP IPv6 global addressing on Cisco ASR platform. If
HSRP is a legacy proprietary protocol; try VRRP. Stateless
autoconfig and router advertisements can obviate (eliminate/reduce)
the need in many cases; albeit, with a longer failure recovery
On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Oliver wrote:
> On Monday 16 July 2012 18:26:08 Rajendra Chayapathi wrote:
>> On the HSRP/ND part , this all falls in the First Hop redundancy areana
>> and can be achieved via any of the following and each has its merits and
>> cons..
>>
>> 1) Using ND -- need to t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 07/16/2012 07:36 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Jay Hanke wrote:
>
>> After a bit of googling, I found some references to an Internet
>> Exchange in St. Louis, MO called the St. Louis Regional
>> Exchange. Is thi
On Jul 16, 2012, at 15:40, Oliver
wrote:
> Additionally, as an alternative to RAs, you can simply point default at the
> all-routers anycast address.
Wouldn't this result in duplicate packets leaving your network if
there were more than 1 router listening to 'all routers' and you (at
the MAC lay
In message
, Grant
Ridder writes:
>
> If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
> through?
>
> -Grant
It still doesn't change the arguement. You still need to have flow
based routers or you may choose the wrong egress point and if you
need NAT66 you have 4+ ups
If you are running an HA pair, why would you care which box it went back
through?
-Grant
On Monday, July 16, 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message squumzofs3_-yrihy8o4gt3w9+x6f...@mail.gmail.com >, Lee
> writes:
> > On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong > wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!
In message
, Lee
writes:
> On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being
> > able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
> > conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
>
> NAT is good for getting the return
On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Jay Hanke wrote:
> After a bit of googling, I found some references to an Internet
> Exchange in St. Louis, MO called the St. Louis Regional Exchange.
> Is this project still active?
It appears to be dead. The web site redirects to a commercial colo, and the
last f
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:04 -0400, Lee wrote:
> Each site gets a /48. Even the ones with less than 200 people.
> [...]
> Which is *boring*. Nothing novel, no breaking out of "IPv4 think"
> aside from massively wasting address space.
It's only a waste if you get nothing for it. By using /64 every
On 7/15/12, John Levine wrote:
>>I feel like I should be able to do something really nice with an
>>absurdly large address space. But lack of imagination or whatever.. I
>>haven't come up with anything that really appeals to me.
>
> Use a fresh IP for every HTTP request, email message, and IM. J
On 7/16/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is being
> able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
> conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
NAT is good for getting the return traffic to the right firewall. How
else
Dear David
>From a visibility point of view, we obtain as much information as we require
>to know exactly what's occurring on our network where and when in real-time.
We know what's happening, on any interface on any network at any time. - that
being said for us the most important visibility is
From: James Braunegg [mailto:james.braun...@micron21.com]
>
> Dear All
>
> Around a year ago I had the same debate sflow vs netflow vs
> snmp port counters. read lots of stories lots of myths lots
> of good information. My Conclusion
>
> In the end I did real life testing comparing each plat
After a bit of googling, I found some references to an Internet
Exchange in St. Louis, MO called the St. Louis Regional Exchange.
Is this project still active?
Thanks,
Jay
True .. Your point of the ICMPv6 storm is on mark and is one of the
drawbacks for this solution.
On 7/16/12 12:39 PM, "Oliver"
wrote:
>On Monday 16 July 2012 18:26:08 Rajendra Chayapathi wrote:
>> On the HSRP/ND part , this all falls in the First Hop redundancy areana
>> and can be achieved via
Dear All
Around a year ago I had the same debate sflow vs netflow vs snmp port counters.
read lots of stories lots of myths lots of good information. My Conclusion
In the end I did real life testing comparing each platform
We routed live traffic (about 250mbits) from our Cisco 7200 G2 routers
On Monday 16 July 2012 18:26:08 Rajendra Chayapathi wrote:
> On the HSRP/ND part , this all falls in the First Hop redundancy areana
> and can be achieved via any of the following and each has its merits and
> cons..
>
> 1) Using ND -- need to tune the "IPv6 nd reachable time" to achieve the
> fas
On Jul 13, 2012, at 8:05 AM, TJ wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM, -Hammer- wrote:
>
>> OK. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get some flak for this but I'll share this
>> question and it's background anyway. Please be gentle.
>>
>> In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routabl
On the HSRP/ND part , this all falls in the First Hop redundancy areana
and can be achieved via any of the following and each has its merits and
cons..
1) Using ND -- need to tune the "IPv6 nd reachable time" to achieve the
faster failover
2) Using any of the First hop redundancy protocol ( HSRP,
"""
Why would you want NAT66? ICK!!! One of the best benefits of IPv6 is
being able to eliminate NAT. NAT was a necessary evil for IPv4 address
conservation. It has no good use in IPv6.
"""
NAT still has its uses; virtualization and cloud infrastructure being
one of the most legitimate.
Certain k
Also compiles and works fine for me on 10.7.
-- Thomas York
-Original Message-
From: Randy Carpenter [mailto:rcar...@network1.net]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Fernando Gont
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv6 Toolkit v1.2: Latest snapshot, and git repo
Appears to compile file on Ma
I agree. Most are naive. Not all.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 7/16/2012 11:34 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said:
---That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be there
if there weren't enough
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:09:28 -0500, -Hammer- said:
> ---That is clearly a matter of opinion. NAT64 and NAT66 wouldn't be there
> if there weren't enough customers asking for it. Are all the customers naive?
> I doubt it. They have their reasons. I agree with your "purist" definition and
> did n
Inline -
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
1) (This one is currently a personal issue) I am still building up a true IPv6
skillset. Yes, I understand it for the most part but now is the time to apply
it.
Frankly, IMHO, the best way to build up a truly useful IPv6 skill set
On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:11 AM, -Hammer- wrote:
> There are multiple issues here. I understand most folks on these threads are
> beyond me but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in this position.
>
> 1) (This one is currently a personal issue) I am still building up a true
> IPv6 skillset. Y
Appears to compile file on Mac OS X 10.7. The resulting programs run, but I
have not tried any real testing with actual data.
thanks,
-Randy
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Folks,
>
> I've posted a snapshot (tarball) of my working copy of t
There are multiple issues here. I understand most folks on these threads
are beyond me but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in this position.
1) (This one is currently a personal issue) I am still building up a
true IPv6 skillset. Yes, I understand it for the most part but now is
the ti
On 2012-07-14, at 02:06, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> OpenSRS does (now) have online IPv6 glue-record editing.
>
> They can insert DS records by hand if you email into their support
> department (assuming you are the reseller and you have access to their
> support department, otherwise you have to wo
44 matches
Mail list logo
