Vasil Kolev , 2009-10-22 21:03 (+0200):
> how should we provide DNS and other useful information for the V6 only
> people?
What Router Advertisment server did you use? The radvd server supports
RFC 5006, an extension to vanilla RA that gives an address to a
resolving DNS server (RDNSS).
Granted,
: Bernhard Schmidt; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: {SPAM?} Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
It's not all that easy unless the dude has hacked the device driver.
Owen DeLong wrote:
> And of course, a rogue RA station would _NEVER_ mess with that bit
> in what it transmits...
>
> Uh, yeah
It's not all that easy unless the dude has hacked the device driver.
Owen DeLong wrote:
And of course, a rogue RA station would _NEVER_ mess with that bit
in what it transmits...
Uh, yeah.
Owen
On Nov 7, 2009, at 2:41 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
The Wi-Fi MAC protocol has a pair of header
And of course, a rogue RA station would _NEVER_ mess with that bit
in what it transmits...
Uh, yeah.
Owen
On Nov 7, 2009, at 2:41 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
The Wi-Fi MAC protocol has a pair of header bits that mean "from AP"
and "to AP." In ad-hoc mode, a designated station acts as an AP
Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> As already said, wireless in infrastructure mode (with access points)
>> always sends traffic between clients through the access point, so a
>> decent AP can filter this.
> How does the client determine that the traffic came from the AP versus
> another client?
I'm not exa
The Wi-Fi MAC protocol has a pair of header bits that mean "from AP"
and "to AP." In ad-hoc mode, a designated station acts as an AP, so
that's nothing special. There are a couple of non-AP modes for direct
link exchanges and peer-to-peer exchances that probably don't set "from
AP" b
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:40:46 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> >> This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
> >> advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards
> >> packets makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4.
> > No, what we want are better first hop redundan
This is unusual, but, I have to agree with Randy here.
Owen
On Oct 28, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Amen to that Randy.
MMC
Randy Bush wrote:
This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards
Amen to that Randy.
MMC
Randy Bush wrote:
This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards packets
makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4.
No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and DH
>> This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
>> advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards packets
>> makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4.
> No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and DHCP for
> v6, so that everyone who has extra
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
> advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards packets
> makes RAs much more robust than DHCPv4.
No, what we want are better first hop redundancy protocols, and DHCP for
v6, so that
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 20:48 -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> the mac address of the rouge server
>
>
>
> It's R-O-G-U-E - rogue.
>
> Rouge is French for red and English for red make-up.
Also the name of the Ford assembly plant at which the Monday
Could have been a server in drag? ;)
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 20:48 -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> the mac address of the rouge server
>>
>
>
>
> It's R-O-G-U-E - rogue.
>
> Rouge is French for red and English for red make-up.
>
>
>
> Regards, K.
>
>
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:33:34 +1100
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 20:48 -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> > the mac address of the rouge server
>
>
>
> It's R-O-G-U-E - rogue.
>
> Rouge is French for red and English for red make-up.
>
>
>
Also the colour of the faces of angry net adm
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 20:48 -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> the mac address of the rouge server
It's R-O-G-U-E - rogue.
Rouge is French for red and English for red make-up.
Regards, K.
--
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
On wireless networks you can note the mac address of the rouge server
and dissociate it from the wireless network, this is rather similar to
what we did on switches prior to dhcp protection, it is reactive but it
certainly can be automatic.
Some controller based wireless systems have ips or nac fu
I think for very small/small networks anycast requires a lot of overhead
and understanding. If your big enough to do anycast and/or loadbalancing
it's not hard for you to put all three addresses onto one device.
Anycast isn't really hard - same address, multiple places, routers see wha
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:50:47PM +1300, Perry Lorier wrote:
> I've implemented myself a system which firewalled all ARP within the AP and
> queried the DHCP server asking for the correct MAC for that lease then sent
> the ARP back (as well as firewalling DHCP servers and the like). It's
> qui
>
> I figured was a good candidate since it's already partially in use
>> for
>> reserved special addresses.
>
>
But in a totally non-routable fashion, as it stands today.
ULA's have the immediate benefit of being routable, but not globally so -
and (hopefully) already being in filter lists t
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
> Please remember that IPv6 DNS is OFTEN not stateless as the replies
> are commonly too large for UDP.
Anything that supports IPv6 _should_ also support EDNS0.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anyb
On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:45 AM, TJ wrote:
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation
and
load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using
:::1
FWIW - I think simple anycast fits that bill.
I th
On Oct 23, 2009, at 5:08 AM, Perry Lorier wrote:
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation
and load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using
:::1 I personally would suggest getting a well known
U
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
NAT wasnt a component of IPv4 until it was already had widespread
adoption. I remain completely unconvinced that people will not
continue to perceive value in PAT6 between their private and their
public subnets.
People may
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
>
>
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1
>>>
>> FWIW - I think simple anycast fits that bill.
>>
>>
>>
> I think for very
> WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
Needs an acronym ... off the top of my head, something like ASPEN -
Anycast Service Provisioning for Enterprise Networks ... ?
(Although it could be appropriate for an ISP-HomeUser as well ... hmmm,
SPATULA - Service Provisio
TJ wrote:
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1
FWIW - I think simple anycast fits that bill.
I think for very small/small
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1 I
personally would suggest getting a well known ULA-C allocation
assigned to IANA, then use :::1
:::2 a
> >> WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
> > You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
> > load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1
FWIW - I think simple anycast fits that bill.
> > I personally would suggest getting a well kno
On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Perry Lorier wrote:
trej...@gmail.com wrote:
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and
load balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1
I personally would suggest
On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Ray Soucy wrote:
Others may have their specific requests from vendors, but here are
mine:
1. Include DHCPv6 client functionality as part of any IPv6
implementation.
2. Support RA-gaurd and DHCPv6 snooping in L2 network infrastructure.
I
On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:03 -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server
break
the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise
their
presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
In some
On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:31 PM, TJ wrote:
Then let me say it. RA needs to be able to be completely turned
off.
DHCPv6 needs to be able to completely configure all requesting hosts.
Those two statements are not synonymous ...
They may not be synonymous, but, there is a set of operators for
trej...@gmail.com wrote:
WRT "Anycast DNS"; Perhaps a special-case of ULA, FD00::53?
You want to allow for more than one for obvious fault isolation and load
balancing reasons. The draft suggested using :::1 I
personally would suggest getting a well known ULA-C allocation assigned
to
David W. Hankins wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:57:40PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
Really. How do we deal with rouge DHCP on the wireless LAN, obviously
this is such a complex issue that we couldn't possibly have a solution
that could be applied to RA.
There are some wireless equipmen
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:25:10AM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> I think it was really this that I was wanting more info on. "Entered"
> where?
On the address configured on the interface typically, or whatever
other system specifical local means are used to enter a route for the
prefix for the interfa
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:57:40PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Really. How do we deal with rouge DHCP on the wireless LAN, obviously
> this is such a complex issue that we couldn't possibly have a solution
> that could be applied to RA.
There are some wireless equipment that claim to have a setting
Ray Soucy wrote:
Others may have their specific requests from vendors, but here are mine:
1. Include DHCPv6 client functionality as part of any IPv6 implementation.
2. Support RA-gaurd and DHCPv6 snooping in L2 network infrastructure.
I can agree with that.
I would also add that there is
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 16:16 -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
> Unless of course it can fall back on native IPv4, or has entered a
> bogus covering /64.
I think it was really this that I was wanting more info on. "Entered"
where?
Sorry to be obtuse, clearly I am missing something obvious.
Regards,
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 okt 2009, at 22:52, Mark Smith wrote:
Seriously, we're all adults. So treating us like children and
taking away the power tools is not appreciated.
Stop trying to break the internet and I'll treat you like an adult.
Great way to shoot down your own cr
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:12:14AM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> > To work around this problem, some DHCPv6 software implementers have
> > elected to temporarily apply a fixed /64 bit prefix to all applied
> > addresses until a prefix length can be made available in-band through
> > some means. This d
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:03 -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
> > If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break
> > the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their
> > presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
>
> In some configurations not all hosts are suppo
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:22:52AM +1300, Perry Lorier wrote:
You could imagine extending this to other services such as NTP, but I'm
not sure that you really would want to go that far, perhaps using DNS to
lookup "_ntp._udp.local IN SRV" or similar to fi
On Oct 22, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Knowing about it the
instant it happens might even be better than slowly coming to the
realization that you're dealing with one.
Might just be me, but I'm more worried about the rogue RA (or DHCPv4)
server that does not disrupt communication at
On 22 okt 2009, at 22:52, Mark Smith wrote:
Seriously, we're all adults. So treating us like children and
taking away the power tools is not appreciated.
Stop trying to break the internet and I'll treat you like an adult.
Great way to shoot down your own credibility. Just because you don
It's certainly encouraging to see how there is such consensus among
NANOG on IPv6 deployment. :-)
Recent exchanges seem to be getting a little personal, so we might
want to take a step back and breath.
I don't think adding default gateway support to DHCPv6 will have much
of an impact, but I'm OK
>
>
>>> Then let me say it. RA needs to be able to be completely turned off.
> DHCPv6 needs to be able to completely configure all requesting hosts.
Those two statements are not synonymous ...
Sure, leave RA in the IPv6 stack. The market will decide, and we will see if
> it is still on by defau
>
>
> Port based solutions don't work well on wireless networks and other
> mediums.
>
> Something like PSPF then? (assuming it works properly on IPv6 multicast ...
)
/TJ
Owen DeLong wrote:
Not at all. People are not saying RA has to go away. They are saying we
need the option of DHCPv6 doing the job where we do not feel that RA is
the correct tool.
Then let me say it. RA needs to be able to be completely turned off.
DHCPv6 needs to be able to completely
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:40:50 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 21 okt 2009, at 22:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > The assumption that the router "knows" it is correct for every host
> > on a given
> > LAN simply does not map to reality deployed today.
>
> What I'm saying is that a router kn
Original Message
From: Ray Soucy
>Or is it that you want IPv6 to be a 128-bit version of IPv4?
Yes, this is in fact exactly what the network operators keep saying.
>RA is a
>good idea and it works. You can add options to DHCPv6, but I don't
>see many vendors implementing default
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:20:11 +1100
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:40 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break
> > the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their
> > presence, that wouldn't
On Oct 22, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
This to me is one of the least credible claims of the RA/SLAAC crowd.
On the one hand we have carriers around the world with millions and
millions of customers getting default routes and other config through
DHCPv4 every day. And most of the time i
On 22/10/09 16:06 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:57:40PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
Really. How do we deal with rouge DHCP on the wireless LAN, obviously
this is such a complex issue that we couldn't possibly have a solution
that could be applied to RA.
Rogue DHCP doesn'
Correct.
Not sure if you got the sarcasm in that last reply...
As far as I'm concerned, a rogue is a rogue. Knowing about it the
instant it happens might even be better than slowly coming to the
realization that you're dealing with one. The point is that we need
to address rogues regardless of
Tony,
On Oct 22, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> The root of the argument I see in this entire thread is the assumption that
> 'what we have for IPv4 has *always* been there'.
Well, no. My reading is "what we have for IPv4 works, scales well, we're
accustomed to it, and our provisioning s
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:57:40PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Really. How do we deal with rouge DHCP on the wireless LAN, obviously
> this is such a complex issue that we couldn't possibly have a solution
> that could be applied to RA.
Rogue DHCP doesn't immedately take down the entire subnet of m
Really. How do we deal with rouge DHCP on the wireless LAN, obviously
this is such a complex issue that we couldn't possibly have a solution
that could be applied to RA.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:42:19PM -0400, Ray Souc
In a message written on Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:42:19PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> The solution here, and one that is already being worked on by vendors,
> is RA gaurd, not changing DHCPv6 in an effort to bypass RA.
Port based solutions don't work well on wireless networks and other
mediums.
--
David Conrad wrote:
> > Ok, lets start with not breaking the functionality we have today
> > in IPv4. Once you get that working again we can look at new
> > ideas (like RA) that might have utility. Let the new stuff live/die
> on
> > it's own merits. The Internet is very good at sorting out the u
Sorry, not buying it.
The solution here, and one that is already being worked on by vendors,
is RA gaurd, not changing DHCPv6 in an effort to bypass RA.
What your proposing as a solution isn't much of a solution at all but
just a (seemingly) lesser problem.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Leo B
In a message written on Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:23:13PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> If the argument against RA being used to provide gateway information
> is "rogue RA," then announcing gateway information though the use of
> DHCPv6 doesn't solve anything. Sure you'll get around rogue RA, but
> you'
> This to me is one of the least credible claims of the RA/SLAAC crowd.
> On the one hand we have carriers around the world with millions and
> millions of customers getting default routes and other config through
> DHCPv4 every day. And most of the time it actually works very well!
>
> On the othe
On Oct 22, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Vasil Kolev wrote:
В 11:10 -0700 на 22.10.2009 (чт), Owen DeLong написа:
OK... Here's the real requirement:
Systems administrators who do not control routers need the ability in
a dynamic host configuration mechanism to
assign a number of parameters to the hosts
В 11:10 -0700 на 22.10.2009 (чт), Owen DeLong написа:
> OK... Here's the real requirement:
>
> Systems administrators who do not control routers need the ability in
> a dynamic host configuration mechanism to
> assign a number of parameters to the hosts they administer through
> that dynamic
> > Like I said, if there's a bunch of routers announcing their presence
> > and you want a DHCP option to provide guidance to a host as to which
> > one to choose, that would be fine. But pointing to a potentially non-
> > existing address in the hopes that there will magically be a router
On Oct 22, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 okt 2009, at 17:03, Kevin Loch wrote:
If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server
break the tie in the selection between several routers that
advertise their presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
In so
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> What does that have to with anything? IPv6 stateless autoconfig
> predates the widespread use of DHCPv4.
So does IPX and IPX/RIP.
Why does this thread seem to rehash some big disconnect between
academics, IETF and actual deployment-oriented p
On 22 okt 2009, at 17:03, Kevin Loch wrote:
If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server
break the tie in the selection between several routers that
advertise their presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
In some configurations not all hosts are supposed to use the same
> Ok, lets start with not breaking the functionality we have today
> in IPv4. Once you get that working again we can look at new
> ideas (like RA) that might have utility. Let the new stuff live/die on
> it's own merits. The Internet is very good at sorting out the useful
> technology from the cr
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break
the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their
presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
In some configurations not all hosts are supposed to use the same
router. We need t
On 22/10/2009 12:49, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
its been a few weeks/years/minutes since I ran an exchange fabric,
but when we first turned up IPv6 - the first thing they did was try
to hand all the other routers IPv6 addresses. that pesky RA/ND
thing...
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 14:25 +0200, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > I point you to a fairly common Internet architecture artifact,
> > the exchange point... dozens of routers sharing a common
> > media for peering exchange.
>
> And y
ate: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:22:52
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:02:14PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> On 22 okt 2009, at 01:55, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>>
>>
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:20:11PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:40 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break
the tie in the selection between several
Just to clear things up, I'm not advocating the use of 80-bit
prefixes. I was asking if they were a legitimate way to prevent SLAAC
in environments with hardware that don't support disabling the
autonomous flag for a prefix, or hosts that don't respect the
autonomous flag. I've since done some te
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:30 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > But my question was not about IPv6. How do IPv4 routers operate in such
> > a situation?
> exchange design 101.
Thanks :-)
I was being a bit Socratic. In the IPv4 world, routers in such complex
environments are gene
> > I point you to a fairly common Internet architecture artifact,
> > the exchange point... dozens of routers sharing a common
> > media for peering exchange.
>
> Bill, could you explain how or why ra or dhcp or dhcpv6 have any relevance
> to an IXP? Being one of these "artefact" o
On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:40 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 21 okt 2009, at 22:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
The assumption that the router "knows" it is correct for every host
on a given
LAN simply does not map to reality deployed today.
What I'm saying is that a router knows whether it's a rou
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:35:18PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 22/10/2009 11:30, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:20:11PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> >>The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if
> >>multiple routers are sending the same p
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:22:52AM +1300, Perry Lorier wrote:
>
> You could imagine extending this to other services such as NTP, but I'm
> not sure that you really would want to go that far, perhaps using DNS to
> lookup "_ntp._udp.local IN SRV" or similar to find your local NTP servers.
>
> A
On 22/10/2009 11:30, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:20:11PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if
multiple routers are sending the same preference level, but presumably
that would not happen in a well-tended ne
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:18:48PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:08 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:44:38PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 10:30 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > > > The RA contains
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:02:14PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 okt 2009, at 01:55, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
so your not a fan of the smart edge and the stupid network.
I'm a fan of getting things right. A serv
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:08 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:44:38PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 10:30 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > > The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if
> > >
> > >
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:44:38PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 10:30 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if
> > > multiple routers are sending the same preference level, but presumably
> > > that would
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 10:30 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > The RA contains a preference level... maybe that doesn't cut it if
> > multiple routers are sending the same preference level, but presumably
> > that would not happen in a well-tended network.
>
> I point you to a f
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:20:11PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:40 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break
> > the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their
> > presence, that woul
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:02:14PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 22 okt 2009, at 01:55, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> > so your not a fan of the smart edge and the stupid network.
>
> I'm a fan of getting things right. A server somewhere 5 subnets away
> doesn't really
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:40 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> If, on the other hand, the REAL desire is to have a DHCP server break
> the tie in the selection between several routers that advertise their
> presence, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
The RA contains a preference level... maybe
On 22 okt 2009, at 01:55, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
so your not a fan of the smart edge and the stupid network.
I'm a fan of getting things right. A server somewhere 5 subnets away
doesn't really know what routers are working on my subnet. It can take
a guess and then wa
On 21 okt 2009, at 23:34, David W. Hankins wrote:
There is a problem with the "Both RA and DHCPv6 Model" currently
proposed by IETF iconoclasts. Should RA fail, for any reason from
router, system, software, network path, security, or user error,
then the simplest networks imaginable (where host
On 21 okt 2009, at 22:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
The assumption that the router "knows" it is correct for every host
on a given
LAN simply does not map to reality deployed today.
What I'm saying is that a router knows whether it's a router or not. A
DHCP server does not, so it has to make a le
What it does deprive them of, with increasing layers of NAT or proxy
service, is "dial-in" access. Many do not require this feature. The
cost of providing it is increased support costs; debugging two
networks and three or four protocols. Today, even debugging IPv4
problems with customers is p
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 14:34 -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
> folks on this mailing list who have proposed you can predict SLAAC
> addresses based on prefix and MAC are confused; they are not taking
> into account the many clients that use temporary addresses by default
> when the A flag is set (the
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:08:13PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 21 okt 2009, at 21:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >However, making it available as an option in DHCPv6 allows the end-
> >user/operator
> >to choose the technology that fits their needs best. I do not know
> >why you are so
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 21:42 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 18 okt 2009, at 5:51, Karl Auer wrote:
> > Do the advertisements "right", advise sysadmins that hosts should
> > not do SLAAC,
>
> Doesn't it tell you something that you're fighting this hard to avoid
> hosts from doing what c
I am replying to several people here in one message. I think most
issues were covered fairly well, but I obviously like to hear myself
talk, and I think there are a few things that need to be said more
plainly (I hope).
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 08:55:28PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Looking for gen
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 okt 2009, at 10:03, Andy Davidson wrote:
Support default-routing options for DHCPv6 !
This would be a big mistake. Fate sharing between the device that
advertises the presence of a router and the device that forwards packets
makes RAs much more robust than
- Original Message
>From: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com
>Then again, if we remove all the improvements from IPv6 what's the point of
>adopting it?
How about "IPv4 address depletion?"
I'm perfectly happy with how my network works. I do, however, want it to keep
growing, and t
On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 21 okt 2009, at 21:50, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 okt 2009, at 10:03, Andy Davidson wrote:
Support default-routing options for DHCPv6 !
This would be a big mistake. [...] It'
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
