IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 64share v2

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 DA2673A10D9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:15:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 d_qFFCeKRBAa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:15:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272053A0CEE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kcpyC-0000GfC; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:15:28 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kcpyC-0000GfC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 64share v2
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <CC7C2B94-5A05-4682-8367-9072CC201C49@employees.org> <80ed3a3b-6e2c-188f-4c1e-c2ededfbbe0d@joelhalpern.com> <0188AC41-60B0-4BC6-810D-DC59CF9E4FB3@employees.org> <1931a638-64ed-f40e-07a3-67cf1eafb941@joelhalpern.com> <376D6BB0-87E2-42E5-9BC4-F3A2F04FA005@employees.org> <CAD6AjGSr-TPcGo7f9EGgoAahYLQTL68CUSq58LGMgD0=6GmRRg@mail.gmail.com> <8DC674FB-9F90-4C41-A323-62BD62934A12@employees.org> <CAD6AjGTYBs8YbHgCJJG84vgwXK4ZSCm65z6KXvZP9F+LdT_atg@mail.gmail.com> <038A830C-E024-42C6-917E-E6FF57829A1C@employees.or g> <CAD6AjGTQVtJBJ3=aZBsF1WcdSK2k9b1hzeZXM6008w_2vpo6_w@mail.gmail.com> <948ACA2B-E45C-4289-A837-9F2536F20F8F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0tDTSH2F4=ZsdMJREy1k6equ9mZV0Au1bJPmKuzxeYVA@mail.gmail.com> <43C449AD-D116-4452-A4F2-79AE5A76539F@employees.org> <m1kcoXQ-0000G1C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011111248460.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1kcp60-0000KgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.201111134 1230.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:44:12 +0100 (CET) ." <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011111341230.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:15:27 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UzYwNjTUe_59U53eSB5w4RcsnOE>
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:15:38 -0000

>> Section 3.4. is a layering violation so that may make it tricky to impleme
>nt
>> it. But worse, it requires router to reflex packets back to the same link
>> they came from. This usually a recipe for routing loops.
>
>Why is 3.4 a layering violation?

"Check probe
"is a simple UDP/IP packet with a destination IP address from the
"lease being checked, and a destination MAC address of the upstream
"router.

I.e., the packet needs to be sent to a MAC address that is not associated
with the destination address. So to send the packet, the process doing the
health check probe needs to be able the retreive the MAC address of the
upstream router and send a packet directly over the L2 interface bypassing
the IPv6 stack.

>> Just thinking out loud, if I want to verify that my local address works,
>> why not send an ICMP ECHO request to the router?
>
>You mean use DHCPv6-PD derived GUA address and ping the LLA address of the 
>upstream router?

Indeed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email