IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Sat, 13 September 2014 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 8897A1A00AD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.643
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 jN7Crfr_gknc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F1C1A00AE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:855:e155:2c81:9ecc] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:855:e155:2c81:9ecc]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s8DJxpHu009727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:59:51 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s8DJxpHu009727
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1410638393; bh=SdlEUc12Je4ERlldaPtT19MfIB4=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=gJPIZJrfNDkhGAIu3KiVmm8hRHHUVRPwk9pwWJTql5ygNwAGkshZBSY6WmKy03CNZ M1JeaqorRb1gPf9JwrE/EIC2vq7qPvl1RzgLl7GCYQ/ifFxP4QKx5n+pHmZmVqByXc rGxaqZdun1sB+qg00EsWLXr72B/C78eIG2QEXSwQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
In-Reply-To: <876198F8-4283-428E-8D20-B4EC6AAE440E@steffann.nl>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:59:47 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <81DE6AB9-A581-4EB6-89C7-00F1CDB314F7@delong.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>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ofImbYeFWgravFfHH0FLCcfTtWk
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 20:05:14 -0000

No... It would only have that impact on hosts that choose to use privacy addresses. I'd much rather see the impact of privacy addressing transferred to the hosts using it than to the network infrastructure. 

> On Sep 13, 2014, at 4:20, 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email