Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sat, 13 September 2014 12:14 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 8EB041A8860 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:14:57 -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 tEYNqwF2tB4P for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE1BB1A885F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122043B; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:14:55 +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= 1410610493; bh=gCuWBZHuqE1A064pDCa6ZJeCqoKVeTEDE2zk/LWhNaM=; b=p oxjxcWdWAt8w/+c9H25tcb1xnILE+KZys+q1OUt4k043FYWJwZo6XTqhwCSDBT/q AcIlbUh6NT/PJCoxPAbradaNJziXv2PXZSL24ZMc6oavgfTR9musA/Ymwz+X0eZ/ 68U8G5q7drLM1vBG6jNvxM2DLijKJeybRHODNdt5kk=
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 3GsQMzgohEJA; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:14:53 +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 56F7934; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:14:52 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CB71500C-DE25-47D3-BA43-90636BFD5522@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:14:51 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4F718CBC-F926-4A37-B9ED-13078AF4926B@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>, <876198F8-4283-428E-8D20-B4EC6AAE440E@steffann.nl> <CB71500C-DE25-47D3-BA43-90636BFD5522@cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KoY3iypGz2rcCzGtu84Qq490Qv8
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <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 12:14:57 -0000

Hi Bernie,

>>> 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...
> 
> I would think he meant for a single node, not across all nodes. Thus each node only has one multicast group (for privacy addresses).

I would hope so as well but I got the impression he didn't...

Cheers :)
Sander