IPv6 prefix from T-Mobile USA used but not announced in BGP (2607:7700::/32)
Baptiste Jonglez
baptiste at bitsofnetworks.org
Wed Apr 27 22:31:44 UTC 2016
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 02:38:41PM -0700, Ca By wrote:
> What behavior do you expect when an ipv6only node connects to an ipv4only
> node , which is the tmobile case? How is that address of the address
> report?
As far as I know, IPv4-only DHT nodes do not directly communicate with
IPv6-only DHT nodes, I don't see how this would be possible in general.
The code of the DHT client is here:
https://github.com/savoirfairelinux/opendht
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Baptiste Jonglez <baptiste at bitsofnetworks.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:16:28PM -0700, Aaron Hopkins wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
> > >
> > > >While doing statistics on the participants of a public DHT, I was
> > > >surprised to see some IP addresses that are not present in the DFZ:
> > >
> > > I believe those are used by T-mobile's 464XLAT (RFC 6877) implementation.
> > >
> > > Recent Android on T-mobile is IPv6-only and has no ability to connect to
> > > raw IPv4 addresses. T-mobile's DNS servers are only asked by these
> > devices
> > > to translate hostnames to IPv6 addresses. If they can't find an IPv6
> > > address, they will look up the IPv4 address for a hostname, and pack it
> > into
> > > the bottom 32 bits of an IPv6 address that routes to a IPv6-to-IPv4 NAT
> > > device.
> >
> > Thanks, I had forgotten that DNS64 is possible without using the
> > well-known prefix. The encoded IPv4 addresses seem to belong to other
> > peers of the DHT.
> >
> > So, if this is basically DNS64/NAT64, these IP addresses should not be
> > seen as source or destination address outside of T-Mobile's network, and
> > are not attached to the interface of any device.
> >
> > I can see two possible explanations:
> >
> > 1/ packets with src or dest IP in 2607:7700::/32 somehow escaped
> > T-Mobile's network, without being translated back to IPv4. They caused
> > other DHT nodes to believe they have incoming peers in 2607:7700::/32.
> >
> > 2/ there is an interesting bug in the DHT software when run behind 464XLAT
> > (btw, the DHT is dual-stack and supports IPv6 just fine)
> >
> > I still wonder how this can happen, because the DHT does not use DNS at
> > all...
> >
> > Baptiste
> >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160428/9dffd656/attachment.sig>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list