Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sat, 13 September 2014 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232DD1A884B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 tiegGhb8Npez for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B76521A06E4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DF43D; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:20:37 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1410607235; bh=j8h5JSC1FtzumYKpc2t0gNB5rCTGFHvwIZduMLygNC4=; b=g bcaju7ZzyH0x4oxlPDSdcr2BZPWPF7O5cAfEHHmT7+DWVlnrQbvz0wQrUPoPBL8+ NvVA0wpJTVMaTwOa7WZyryTbQkhh/ssKqAopKVfBTHTa4sQ6cCqap0YecuWOnfG2 k+aNop1b/ynhF0ozKHNbarRaxgGQ6EBVs37sngz7W4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 4MnXCZTGtu0W; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:20:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:8640:1::6076:e4d6:591d:35ae] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:8640:1:0:6076:e4d6:591d:35ae]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FFB73B; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:20:34 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <0E61F8D0-22C6-4E37-93E2-9D9B13254055@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:20:33 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <876198F8-4283-428E-8D20-B4EC6AAE440E@steffann.nl>
References: <1410082125488.85722@surrey.ac.uk> <540CB702.3000605@gmail.com> <20140908183339.GB98785@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <540E26D9.3070907@gmail.com> <1410227735.13436.YahooMailNeo@web162204.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <540ECB9E.9000102@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr1_sCLHv=D3MeCe47Fa0dxXTXH5B+=wOKpvmEDFkJFiZw@mail.gmail.com> <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B89155AF364@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com> <20140909142226.GP15839@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <101C89B1-019B-4E51-B869-FABC534E6D3D@delong.com> <5413A448.2030104@gont.com.ar> <0E61F8D0-22C6-4E37-93E2-9D9B13254055@delong.com>
To: Owen Delong <owen@delong.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/CGlaIwP0vmMre4BnNYWtX6iW9mw
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:20:42 -0000

Hi Owen,

> I suppose another viable solution would be to require all privacy addresses to use a common lower 24 bit string.

That would defeat the purpose of the solicited node multicast address. All of them would use the same one, so all hosts have to listen to the same one, and we're back to ARP-like efficiency again...

Cheers,
Sander