Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Tue, 09 September 2014 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@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 976681A6FBA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 03:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 aDJ9lPsGPijK for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 03:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4F731A6FB4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 03:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7628; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410259390; x=1411468990; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=43fWF6dQgh5QeKy7fxGA22lnMQCjO/eC0tXMr/GqZNE=; b=LI3F2i0mAjkS4two/ID/hm46Jkqk21fQcGme7uDvrTY2j0jVT/dMixUA OgLaCHV0PC34uiievzW9N7kdHLxjjTLLUN0MNmIjyTuxanIXgMDfomBwr s7A6ndlH0PbSN19EDMc9TldazFoQ09Pe3mgmTa76mwn/zqed5XxAc5yfK o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjkFAJTYDlStJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgkdGU1cEgnjOcgEZeRZ4hAMBAQEEIwpMEAIBCBEEAQELHQMCAgIwFAkIAgQBDQUIEogopjuVZgEXjnYJHTEGAYJ5NoEdBZFBoGCDYWyBB0GBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,491,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="353738345"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2014 10:43:09 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s89Ah8ZM002678 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 10:43:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.218]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 05:43:08 -0500
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6
Thread-Index: AQHPy7BYcufcLcCSE0CP+QdxqYnKUZv4XruAgACCkQCAAAzxgP//rUdQ
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 10:43:07 +0000
Message-ID: <75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B89155AF364@xmb-rcd-x06.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>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1_sCLHv=D3MeCe47Fa0dxXTXH5B+=wOKpvmEDFkJFiZw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.249.123]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_75B6FA9F576969419E42BECB86CB1B89155AF364xmbrcdx06ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/xiw4ga_xJDedI-4LWRSJw7b8dg4
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "l.wood@surrey.ac.uk" <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: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 10:43:11 -0000

Agreed.  Just because one vendor’s switch melted an ipv6 network is not enough justification to change protocols.

Hemant

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 6:29 AM
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk; IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org<mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
This happened because the switch CPUs were overloaded with mld report packets due to end hosts on the extended L2 network replying to MLD all-groups queries every 150 seconds.

So the switch was configured to send all-groups queries to all hosts, but did not have the CPU power to process them, and could not, or was not configured, to rate-limit them.

News at 11: building a network beyond the capabilities of the gear that runs it will result in failure.

That does not mean the protocol is flawed. ARP could have done the same thing, and in fact that was a common problem many years ago... except that these days ARP is usually processed on the fast path and it doesn't matter.