IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 08 September 2014 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 F18E11A040D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 8oqjG66xxqSs for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 174421A0408 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 14:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id r10so21921874pdi.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5mLqvr7hK1d2O9gCdymtRUtVEQZDX6ZIDsuB7kgD6Xc=; b=wFn9m1sLibumJZhWJBjH4sywI/VRRvbTOsRDnDfCbA6Q5yePng0lfGBulH+5u50YR3 vZWektqdvbTjmQhaLPUcoS7gI22RNkwYvgJRzdlHfQodp4Z1eoyloN0rx4bDxHIDyJiY soZ9ReaajNiNrVL3A9WRqgCE8KAxt5dd7nxzLtNJeSU8uUvECVbFEXLSMtdK0YAMb8xO UT8VCaPkFF0aydveGho+QxaTTv7AgXPsZwPOnzAyD9PokOqB5E5Sx5oHUXAE5KqkLopc +4y2hO3bM3xSJBBnu7B03M9/HYgMsAYruPtTdJ32VoLptTgY3j9YKAzJfGrNlBZ/VusM s2nw==
X-Received: by 10.70.38.135 with SMTP id g7mr35608672pdk.100.1410213592669; Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (21.196.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.196.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k1sm9906535pdj.8.2014.09.08.14.59.49 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <540E26D9.3070907@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:59:53 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder@wisc.edu>
References: <1410082125488.85722@surrey.ac.uk> <540CB702.3000605@gmail.com> <20140908183339.GB98785@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20140908183339.GB98785@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Y9mX1X4dbLIfHSS_Q7d_xhxsyns
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
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: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 21:59:57 -0000

I switched to the relevant list.

On 09/09/2014 06:33, Dale W. Carder wrote:
> Thus spake Brian E Carpenter (brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com) on Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:50:26AM +1200:
>> If they really are interesting problems, it might be more to the
>> point to analyse them over on v6ops. Given the number of large
>> IPv6 deployments that don't have such problems, it seems like
>> this particular deployment hit an unfortunate combination of
>> implementation issues. That is worth understanding (for example,
>> how large is the layer 2 network that leads to the MLD listener
>> report overload?).
> 
> Implementing MLD snooping for Solicited-Node multicast addresses 
> is probably a bad idea.
> 
> See: draft-pashby-magma-simplify-mld-snooping-01

OK, but I would also like to understand why we require
MLD messages for a Solicited-Node multicast address to
set Router Alert.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email