Re: 64share v2

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 11 November 2020 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 F31403A0C5D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:19:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 IK0kmpEHDoJY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:19:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4F353A0CEE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:19:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 16428B1; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:19:49 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1605100789; bh=rEhqxQ/NWUacLq7iWJ8/ZiBHXPiueGYjv4hEFRdHizE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mNFQdxnJTVssMuCDndhQUYHTRXSHCkQS5IRhToa1CRuA65bCWJTnOLostvBl8kYm2 tLR8Nvg6YE+s94GOFxH1/amSb8s/F54thFDcs/ZJQR3mgpbcYs4dpv42j7ZqvsG32s gnCPUIxMID7riIrvCshdjLfwGrob8lVtsM9tYB6w=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14451B0; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:19:49 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:19:49 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 64share v2
In-Reply-To: <m1kcpyC-0000GfC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011111417080.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.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> <m1kcpyC-0000GfC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/nrj3BqtsDrkx9hCWDNgOTET0ZgM>
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 13:19:53 -0000

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020, Philip Homburg wrote:

> "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.

I don't see how this is a layering violation. Yes, it's a bit fugly but I 
don't see why it violates layers.

>>> 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.

I can see equal failure modes here where the upstream router is configured 
to not respond to such packets.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se