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
On 14 Mar 2011, at 23:30, Ask Bjørn Hansen 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 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 e
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
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
as
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Jeff Wheeler 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 crazy, right?
This
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
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Owen DeLong 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 which work f
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 ha
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.
On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:53 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:51 PM, George Bonser 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 ho
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
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 11/03/2011 19:37, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
What problem are you trying to solve by not having every subnet being a
/64 ?
nd cache exhaustion? Personally, I'm rather concerned about this, and you
should be too, given the overlapping spheres of our interests.
Particularly as there is no DA
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?
Tracer
In a message written on Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:58:09AM -0800, Leo Bicknell
wrote:
> That said, ND has built into it DAD - Duplicate Address Detection.
> There is already an expectation that there will be collisions, and
> the protocols to detect them are already in place. I see little
> to no re
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
I've got three feasible "fixes" to the NDP flooding problem. One is
dead simple: don't configure /64 LANs. How hard is that? It's a lot
easier than the alternatives.
What problem are you trying to solve by not having every subnet being a
/64 ?
--
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM, 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 the size of *every sub
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:55 PM, James Stahr 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
> want to have a r
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 wi
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 a
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
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
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 there
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:51 PM, George Bonser 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
> subject to such an a
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 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 loopb
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 f
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.
>
>
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,
>
> 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
31 matches
Mail list logo
