IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Generic anycast addresses...

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 03 June 2019 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC782120094 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 11:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1DCymZz6c0QL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F5B4120043 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA013808A; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:45:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A838516A5; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C46E69; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Generic anycast addresses...
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1906031703430.19892@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <D22E680C-3EE3-4AD7-90C0-9339DA2E5A29@fugue.com> <4EF97F31-1F39-4150-B044-955C46E96FB4@fugue.com> <20190530002833.wfvjfbj2lv2ig664@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <7A9560FC-0393-45DF-8389-B868455AC6DD@fugue.com> <20190530005734.7d2alod2zoaemmhc@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <D6E27B45-437F-45BE-A305-47DD460BCE02@fugue.com> <26144.1559226966@localhost> <1DD451A7-D898-4105-974C-53776A3DA9F2@fugue.com> <20190530152902.l2nmyhadr4e4kt7x@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <0FF19D6D-1A45-41EF-BE34-CC35B5E51E1E@steffann.nl> <D91629F6-73AC-4A80-80EF-16644F73DA36@fugue.com> <701687d4-842c-6a16-3c97-349125324e3f@gmail.com> <D648647D-60E1-4DCE-B0BE-11002E0AE5A4@fugue.com> <25631.1559317738@localhost> <CAO42Z2x9iTrbvZuCxqSpDX-CQ9MtY8V1yyb-hg+XYtXXYn7LKg@mail.gmail.com> <9021.1559397908@localhost> <7cec7521-7e14-0eae-c166-2c727324dc5e@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wwC5rjP91qG6nxsaj=0HBKPFzbOXdgGPiTT=pcDjW-+ w@mail.gmail.com> <20612.1559573730@localhost> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1906031703430.19 892@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:46:30 -0400
Message-ID: <18416.1559587590@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/THtteG5d6Qc5n0D571bMlAFkKyc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 18:46:34 -0000

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
    >> My ISP does DHCPv6-PD correctly now, but alas, isn't providing the correct
    >> prefix.  In debugging, I noticed that it is now using Source-Address
    >> specific routing:

    > Yes, openWrt has done that for a while. I am surprised cerowrt didn't.

    >> root@budwrt18:/etc/config# ip -6 route
    >> default from 2607:f0b0:7:1d0::/64 via fe80::fe5b:39ff:fe89:7b00 dev pppoe-wan  metric 512
    >> default from 2607:f0b0:7:8350::/64 via fe80::fe5b:39ff:fe89:7b00 dev pppoe-wan  metric 512
    >>
    >> (why two prefixes, I'm unclear)

    > Is your ISP only handing you /64 and no /56? This is what I have (I have
    > another router in my home that gets /62 from my openwrt router):

I'm not sure.
I have a /56 statically routed to me, but that was done before they could
support PD.   I don't know why I have two different /64s delegated, and I've
already asked about this.

    >> The upshot is that all other prefixes will fall flat at the border, which
    >> is rather what we want.

    > My biggest beef with the scoping is that we're going to have to agree on
    > topology, what a "site" is, etc. This has been historically hard.

I know, but I think that it's okay if we get it right automatically for 80%
of the cases, as they probably cover 99% of the usage.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email