Hello, I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks? Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack. BR, Mohamed
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
@Daniel +1 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly.
Best regards, Daniel
-- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Hi, Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> while originating ICMPv6 error message. -Nagendra -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Right the ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> sounds familiar I guess there was also an option that the P router would just label switch the packet towards the exit PE and the PE would than originate the ICMP back to source Or you can turn off TTL propagation across the core -so the ICMP could only time out at the PEs adam -----Original Message----- From: Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) [mailto:naikumar@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 12:52 PM To: Daniel Roesen; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE Hi, Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> while originating ICMPv6 error message. -Nagendra -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Thanks all, That's sound more logic to me, so we assign IPv6 for lo0 on every hop, so it can understand ICMP control packet. But who would use these packets? If I'm at my 6PE then i ping using Lo0 IPv4 address because we are not enabling IPV6 Routing/Dual stack so it can carry IPv6 addresses across my backbone. I mean to use IPv6 on loopbacks then i need to advertise them on some routing protocol BGP/OPSF but actually we are not enabling these protocols in the Core. An i correct in my logic? BR, Mohamed On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:29 PM, adam vitkovsky <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk>wrote:
Right the ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> sounds familiar I guess there was also an option that the P router would just label switch the packet towards the exit PE and the PE would than originate the ICMP back to source Or you can turn off TTL propagation across the core -so the ICMP could only time out at the PEs
adam -----Original Message----- From: Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) [mailto:naikumar@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 12:52 PM To: Daniel Roesen; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE
Hi,
Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> while originating ICMPv6 error message.
-Nagendra
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly.
Best regards, Daniel
-- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
-- Live As If You Were To Die Tomorrow. Learn As If You Were To Live Forever.
If it does, that's bad... You should never see IPv4 mapped addresses on the wire. They should only be an internal representation of an IPv4 packet within the host. Owen On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) wrote:
Hi,
Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> while originating ICMPv6 error message.
-Nagendra
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly.
Best regards, Daniel
-- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:35:51AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If it does, that's bad... You should never see IPv4 mapped addresses on the wire.
... and some networks filter packets with source address in the mapped range, so traceroute will be broken for 6PE intermediate P hops. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
You mean like this? ;) 1. ??? 2. ldn-ipv6-b1.ipv6.telia.net 0.0% 3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.2 3. cogent-ic-125507-ldn-b5.c.telia.net 0.0% 2 40.6 40.4 40.2 40.6 0.3 4. ::ffff:154.54.57.102 0.0% 2 129.1 129.1 129.1 129.1 0.0 5. ::ffff:154.54.30.129 0.0% 2 120.2 120.0 119.8 120.2 0.3 6. 2001:550::100 0.0% 2 120.2 120.3 120.2 120.5 0.2 7. ::ffff:154.54.5.253 0.0% 2 120.5 120.3 120.1 120.5 0.3 8. ??? 9. cogentco.com 0.0% 2 119.9 119.9 119.9 119.9 0.0 Rob On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:35:51 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If it does, that's bad... You should never see IPv4 mapped addresses on the wire. They should only be an internal representation of an IPv4 packet within the host.
Owen
On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) wrote:
Hi,
Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> while originating ICMPv6 error message.
-Nagendra
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly.
Best regards, Daniel
-- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Yes... That shouldn't happen. Whoever is responsible for the routers at 154.54.{57.102,30.129,5.253} should fix their configurations. Owen On Jun 15, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Robert McKay wrote:
You mean like this? ;)
1. ??? 2. ldn-ipv6-b1.ipv6.telia.net 0.0% 3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.2 3. cogent-ic-125507-ldn-b5.c.telia.net 0.0% 2 40.6 40.4 40.2 40.6 0.3 4. ::ffff:154.54.57.102 0.0% 2 129.1 129.1 129.1 129.1 0.0 5. ::ffff:154.54.30.129 0.0% 2 120.2 120.0 119.8 120.2 0.3 6. 2001:550::100 0.0% 2 120.2 120.3 120.2 120.5 0.2 7. ::ffff:154.54.5.253 0.0% 2 120.5 120.3 120.1 120.5 0.3 8. ??? 9. cogentco.com 0.0% 2 119.9 119.9 119.9 119.9 0.0
Rob
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:35:51 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If it does, that's bad... You should never see IPv4 mapped addresses on the wire. They should only be an internal representation of an IPv4 packet within the host.
Owen
On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) wrote:
Hi,
Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> while originating ICMPv6 error message.
-Nagendra
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly.
Best regards, Daniel
-- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:52:17 -0000, "Nagendra Kumar (naikumar)" said:
Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> while originating ICMPv6 error message.
How the heck is that supposed to work in an all-IPv6 network where you don't *have* an ipv4-addr? Plus, as Owen noted, leaking those on the wire is considered bad form.
participants (8)
-
adam vitkovsky -
Daniel Roesen -
james jones -
mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree -
Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) -
Owen DeLong -
Robert McKay -
valdis.kletnieks＠vt.edu