On 11/1/10 9:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
Hi, almost everytime I open my laptop it gets a different ip address,
sometimes I'm home and it gets that sa
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 6:40 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> David Conrad writes:
>
>> Owen,
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Yes, one time.
>>>
>>> Truly one time.
>>>
>>> No other fees.
>>
>> Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
>>
>> What would happen if
David Conrad writes:
> Owen,
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Yes, one time.
>>
>> Truly one time.
>>
>> No other fees.
>
> Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
>
> What would happen if you then stopped paying?
He'd lose his ASN. What do I win?
-r
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 Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:24:45 -0400
Ben Jencks wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> >>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
> >>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change servi
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
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
>> That claim seems to be unsupported by curre
On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
> That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Currently, most resi
> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Nathan
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> It's not a one size fits all situation.
Right. There are folks who are more than happy (in fact demand) to pay the
RIRs for PI space and pay their ISPs to get that space routed. There are
(probably) folks who are perfectly happy with PA and accept
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Interesting... I guess controlling your own internet fate hasn't been a
> priority for the companies where you've worked. Not one of my clients
> or the companies I have worked for has even given a second thought
> to approving the cost of ad
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Yes, one time.
>
> Truly one time.
>
> No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then stopped paying?
Regards,
-drc
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
>
> one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
>
> randy
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees. The $100/year I was already paying for my other resources
cove
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> Karl Auer wrote:
>>> That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
>>> $1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
>>> the population would
>>>
>> 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 Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Karl Auer wrote:
> > That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
> > $1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
> > the population would consider that "prohibitive" but I'm guessing that
>> It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
randy
Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Uh, no... You're misreading it.
Yes - I read the ISP bit, not the end user bit.
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
$1250.
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 Oct 21, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4bc01459-b53a-4b2c-b75b-47d89550d...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> =20
>>> In message , Owen =
>> DeLong write
>>> s:
>>> =20
>> Which is part one of
>
> Coming across Phil Dykstra's paper from 1999 is what got me thinking
> about it (well, that and moving a lot of data between Europe and the
> West coast of the US).
>
> http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/jumbo.html
>
> http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/
>
>
Found more good information here:
h
>
> I've had pretty good luck asking for higher MTU's on both customer and
> peering links. I'd say about an 80% success rate for dedicated
GigE's.
> It's generally not on the forms though, and sometimes you get what I
> consider weird responses. For instance I know several providers who
> won't
> Probably no reason at all, though probably little perceived benefit.
> 1492 is common enough that google/youtube already runs lower MTU's
just
> to avoid common broken PPPoE setups (which often could run higher MTU,
> but weren't configured that way).
I run into that already with people doing va
In a message written on Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:09:28AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> variety of tags/tunnels/etc by the time it gets to the cell phone. It
> cracks me up that SONET interfaces default 4470, and ethernet still
> defaults to 1500. I've yet to see an MTU option in standard circuit
>
On 10/24/2010 5:05 AM, George Bonser wrote:
And speaking of changing MTU, is there any reason why private exchanges
shouldn't support jumbo frames? Is there any reason nowadays that things
that are ethernet end to end can't be MTU 9000 instead of 1500? It
certainly would improve performance and
On Oct 24, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong
> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
There are some folks (like me) wh
In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
> >> a default gatew
>
> What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
> it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be
re-assembled
> into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48
identified
> a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that
>
>
> What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
> it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be
re-assembled
> into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48
identified
> a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> Amen!
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>>
>> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
>> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
>> is make it work
> Stateless autoconfig works very well, It would be just perfect if the
> network boundary was configurable (like say /64 if you really want it,
> or
> /80 - /96 for the rest of us)
Why do you feel it's a poor decision to assign /64's to individual LANs?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
Amen!
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
> is make it work like IPv4.
>
>
I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig altogether and
On Oct 23, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
routers
are cre
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>
> >> Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
> >> capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
> >> routers
> >> are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really,
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 2010, at 6:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Just for grins, let's put some rough math to that assertion. The
>> average percentage of the Internet reached by a ULA or RFC1918 leak
>> will be close to:
>>
>> (1-A)^B
>>
>> A = the prob
On Oct 22, 2010, at 6:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:25 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:25 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>> On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaegg
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
>> I suppose you could run DHCPv6 on a subnet to give hosts addresses
>> but never give them a default gateway, but that would be a little
>> useless no?
>
> Works great when you don't need routing.
Or the default route should point out a
>>>
>> Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
>> capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all routers
>> are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really, since you
>> have to use high for everything in any reasonable deploy
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 03:48 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
> An RA is single, periodic, in the order of 100s of seconds, multicast
> packet. If you're arguing against the cost of that, then I think you're
> being a bit too precious with your packets.
Just to be clear on this: I was taking issue solely w
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:10:08 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
> > Karl Auer wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> >>> On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>
> Ho
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
>> point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
>> feater told the rest of the group "He's an opera
It's amazing how much of a problem you think leaking of prefixes is...
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty strict about what prefixes I
allow to be advertised up to me from people we service.
I'm not sure having a random private prefix will make much of a
difference, since it sounds like fat-f
On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:25 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> Announce your gua and then blackhol
On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
feater told the rest of the group "He's an operator and thus doesn't
understand how any of this works, ignore hi
In a message written on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:25:18PM +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
> There isn't a method to specify a default gateway in DHCPv6. Some
> people want it, however it seems a bit pointless to me if you're going
> to have RAs announcing M/O bits anyway - you may as well use those RAs
> to
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix.
you can tell if you're lea
The design of IPv6 is that DHCPv6 and RA work together. This is why
there is no method to express the default gateway using DHCPv6, that
task is handled by the RA. I suppose you could run DHCPv6 on a subnet
to give hosts addresses but never give them a default gateway, but
that would be a little
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
> Karl Auer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
DHCPv
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> > On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> > >
> > > How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
> > > DHCPv6 works. I guess there is a lot of misunderstanding ab
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
