IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Sat, 13 September 2014 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 5907E1A8857 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.153
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 3nRZCp-_Sffz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DB9D1A06E3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=773; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410610280; x=1411819880; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mdib4ZTfvprFnkV9AtXBFHOBk7Q3WDwkkvP6YqOrwZA=; b=nF7y3feU5+czQrVi9H3nhGNs+9k+m+Ot8xQ2LGw0ZUVcfgraPVHBMBXm qGKBfuuBsEbGqdLRzQQsio8WUJyLyHsoBZ6YQz4RFj0ljGRb7GSqxHObj eYa8prN4k692Jx0pu5jFy+e3T6lM6w5/1dTm2G9zkEYoL2LcY92e35q6N o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAPcyFFStJA2L/2dsb2JhbABfgw1TV8kVCodOAYEJFniEAwEBAQMBAQEBNzQLBQsCAQgYHhAnCyUCBA4FG4gbCA28EQETBI8aMweDLoEdAQSRTYs7lT+DXmyCSgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,517,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="354932888"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Sep 2014 12:11:19 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8DCBIx9008972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:11:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.78]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:11:18 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6
Thread-Index: AQHPzBJt8gpNy9O+wUihdMo7NWOju5v47XmAgAAD4oCABSo4VIAAUQTHgADYjYD//7pcLA==
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:11:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CB71500C-DE25-47D3-BA43-90636BFD5522@cisco.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <876198F8-4283-428E-8D20-B4EC6AAE440E@steffann.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/b-nz90F0zxymnbCtCJ7oCc-TmKQ
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 12:11:29 -0000

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

- Bernie (from iPad)

> On Sep 13, 2014, at 7:21 AM, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email