在2010-04-26，nanog-request@nanog.org 写道：
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request@nanog.org
You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner@nanog.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mikael Abrahamsson) 2. Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith) 3. Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Doug Barton) 4. Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith) 5. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Jack Bates) 6. Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Jack Bates) 7. Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mikael Abrahamsson) 8. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Seth Mattinen) 9. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Roy) 10. Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:37:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Subject: Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004260435340.6768@uplift.swm.pp.se> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
On 04/25/10 16:42, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's what Link Local is for.
fe80::<EUI-64>%<interface>
For example, if the CPE is connected to the customer's network on eth0 and the CPE mac address is 00:45:4b:b9:02:be, you could go to:
... and regardless of the specific method, the vendors already document the procedure for connecting to the web interface for IPv4, there is no reason to believe that they could not or would not do the same for IPv6 if necessary.
Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will work in real life? Using link-local for this kind of end-user administration of their equipment is doomed to fail. There needs to be a procedure for devices which are going to get DHCP-PD from the provider, that they have a certain prefix they use until they actually get the real PD prefix, so end user dns etc works so it's easy to do administration of the device.
We can't expect end-users to do the above procedure.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930 From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> Subject: Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20100426123151.78654a64@opy.nosense.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000 Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being available and being assigned global address space. That's what the global only people are saying.
(how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to that one -- the link-local address.
Ever tried to ping a link local address?
If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is.
- Matt
-- "You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it." -- Seen in a fortune cookie
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:03:29 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Subject: Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4BD50281.9040106@dougbarton.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 04/25/10 19:37, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
... and regardless of the specific method, the vendors already document the procedure for connecting to the web interface for IPv4, there is no reason to believe that they could not or would not do the same for IPv6 if necessary.
Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will work in real life?
Sorry, I knew that I shouldn't have helped perpetuate this thread, which (IMO) is already way off topic.
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:43:17 +0930 From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> Subject: Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20100426124317.1d02d49c@opy.nosense.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930 Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000 Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being available and being assigned global address space. That's what the global only people are saying.
(how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to that one -- the link-local address.
Ever tried to ping a link local address?
If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is.
To make it easier, here's a clue:
$ ip -6 route show | grep fe80 fe80::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev tun6to4 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1472 advmss 1412 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev pan0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
(eth1 is my wired/wireless LAN, tun6to4 is my IPv6 6to4 tunnel, and pan0 is my bluetooth LAN)
- Matt
-- "You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it." -- Seen in a fortune cookie
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:23:32 -0500 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) To: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4BD51544.5030707@brightok.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote:
On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote:
The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts.
I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider). I get alocated my /26 and it doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.).
I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP.
I personally love it, as do my customers who don't care much for cpe's that do NAT or having to configure PPP on their devices. Individual vlans or more traditional pvc for each customer, and massive router configs make for fun. Perhaps someday vendors will support it better, but I enjoy the low overhead and stupid cpe.
Oh, and did I mention the customers using switches instead of routers get to enjoy IPv6?
Jack
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:27:18 -0500 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> Subject: Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4BD51626.4010004@brightok.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will work in real life? Using link-local for this kind of end-user administration of their equipment is doomed to fail. There needs to be a procedure for devices which are going to get DHCP-PD from the provider, that they have a certain prefix they use until they actually get the real PD prefix, so end user dns etc works so it's easy to do administration of the device.
Last 3 cheap routers. BIG STICKER: INSTALL SOFTWARE BEFORE YOU PLUG THIS ROUTER IN! I doubt many users even use the old "goto http://192.168.1.1/" anymore. That being said, there are private addressing schemes in IPv6 as well. No reason one could be bound to a cpe router with an easy to type address.
Jack
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:43:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Subject: Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004260640450.6768@uplift.swm.pp.se> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
Last 3 cheap routers. BIG STICKER: INSTALL SOFTWARE BEFORE YOU PLUG THIS ROUTER IN! I doubt many users even use the old "goto http://192.168.1.1/" anymore. That being said, there are private addressing schemes in IPv6 as well. No reason one could be bound to a cpe router with an easy to type address.
Yeah, and when I try that on my linux box it won,t install the software for some reason. we need solutions that are cross platform and open, let's not help microsoft any further, thank you.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:53:15 -0700 From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4BD51C3B.5000002@rollernet.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 4/25/10 9:23 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote:
On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote:
The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts.
I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider). I get alocated my /26 and it doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.).
I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP.
I personally love it, as do my customers who don't care much for cpe's that do NAT or having to configure PPP on their devices. Individual vlans or more traditional pvc for each customer, and massive router configs make for fun. Perhaps someday vendors will support it better, but I enjoy the low overhead and stupid cpe.
Oh, and did I mention the customers using switches instead of routers get to enjoy IPv6?
Don't forget the increased MTU without PPP eating some of it.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 9 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:03:01 -0700 From: Roy <r.engehausen@gmail.com> Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4BD51E85.3020609@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 4/25/2010 5:11 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote:
On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote:
The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts.
I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider). I get alocated my /26 and it doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.).
I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP.
~Seth
My old company does it this way. Made life very easy. Most consumer grade routers come set for DHCP out of the box so it is plug and play.
------------------------------
Message: 10 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:54:05 +0930 From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> Subject: Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20100426145405.7947d206@opy.nosense.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:42:31 -0700 Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Apr 25, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being available and being assigned global address space. That's what the global only people are saying.
Your internet connectivity, by definition, depends on an internet link being available. No link, no connection. Simple as that.
Now, if you're talking about multihoming, I, as one of the global only people, am suggesting that you get your global addresses from ARIN and advertise it to both of your upstreams.
I know this is not popular with many of the ISPs out there because there is a cost to that and a scale factor that still has yet to be addressed in the IP routing paradigm. However, I think that will happen anyway.
Alternatively, even if you want to do some funky NAT-based solution, there's nothing wrong with using GUA on the internal side of the NAT to your PA prefixes outside. That way, when you get the opportunity to remove that NAT cruft from your environment, you already have usable addresses and you don't have to renumber.
(how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
That's what Link Local is for.
fe80::<EUI-64>%<interface>
For example, if the CPE is connected to the customer's network on eth0 and the CPE mac address is 00:45:4b:b9:02:be, you could go to:
Would you want to be asking residential customers (your other half, mother, father, sister etc. - not a tech like you) to work that out and then type that in? Would you want to be running the helpdesk that supports those customers, considering the chance of error there is (selecting the wrong interface, typos etc. etc.)
The IPv6 Internet needs to be at least as user friendly as IPv4, so asking residential customers to type in anything harder than an IPv4 address is unacceptable.
Adding in an interface name to a literal IPv6 address is effectively specifying a subnet, without specifying a subnet. ULAs (announced in RAs) make this easier, because you're not creating the requirement for applications to have to understand both literal LL IPv6 addresses as well as qualifying interface names.
Regards, Mark.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
End of NANOG Digest, Vol 27, Issue 158 **************************************