help

Mon Apr 26 11:10:51 UTC 2010



在2010-04-26，nanog-request at nanog.org 写道：
>Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
>	nanog at nanog.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	nanog-request at nanog.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	nanog-owner at nanog.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: [Re:
>      http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>      (Mikael Abrahamsson)
>   2. Re: [Re:
>      http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith)
>   3. Re: [Re:
>      http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Doug Barton)
>   4. Re: [Re:
>      http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith)
>   5. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Jack Bates)
>   6. Re: [Re:
>      http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Jack Bates)
>   7. Re: [Re:
>      http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>      (Mikael Abrahamsson)
>   8. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Seth Mattinen)
>   9. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Roy)
>  10. Re: [Re:
>      http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:37:57 +0200 (CEST)
>From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
>Subject: Re: [Re:
>	http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>To: Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us>
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004260435340.6768 at uplift.swm.pp.se>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> On 04/25/10 16:42, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> That's what Link Local is for.
>>>
>>> fe80::<EUI-64>%<interface>
>>>
>>> For example, if the CPE is connected to the customer's network on eth0
>>> and the CPE mac address is 00:45:4b:b9:02:be, you could go to:
>>>
>>> http://[fe80::0245:4bff:feb9:02be]%eth0
>>
>> ... and regardless of the specific method, the vendors already document
>> the procedure for connecting to the web interface for IPv4, there is no
>> reason to believe that they could not or would not do the same for IPv6
>> if necessary.
>
>Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will work 
>in real life? Using link-local for this kind of end-user administration of 
>their equipment is doomed to fail. There needs to be a procedure for 
>devices which are going to get DHCP-PD from the provider, that they have a 
>certain prefix they use until they actually get the real PD prefix, so end 
>user dns etc works so it's easy to do administration of the device.
>
>We can't expect end-users to do the above procedure.
>
>-- 
>Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930
>From: Mark Smith
>	<nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
>Subject: Re: [Re:
>	http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org>
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <20100426123151.78654a64 at opy.nosense.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000
>Matthew Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
>> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400
>> > Richard Barnes <richard.barnes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad
>> > > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
>> > 
>> > My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about
>> > robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's
>> > internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being
>> > available and being assigned global address space. That's what the
>> > global only people are saying.
>> > 
>> > (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP
>> > login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got
>> > address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
>> 
>> I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to
>> that one -- the link-local address.
>> 
>
>Ever tried to ping a link local address?
>
>If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it
>some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is.
>
>
>> - Matt
>> 
>> -- 
>> "You are capable, creative, competent, careful.  Prove it."
>> 		-- Seen in a fortune cookie
>> 
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:03:29 -0700
>From: Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us>
>Subject: Re: [Re:
>	http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <4BD50281.9040106 at dougbarton.us>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 04/25/10 19:37, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> ... and regardless of the specific method, the vendors already document
>>> the procedure for connecting to the web interface for IPv4, there is no
>>> reason to believe that they could not or would not do the same for IPv6
>>> if necessary.
>> 
>> Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will
>> work in real life?
>
>Sorry, I knew that I shouldn't have helped perpetuate this thread, which
>(IMO) is already way off topic.
>
>
>Doug
>
>-- 
>
>	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
>			-- Propellerheads
>
>	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
>	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:43:17 +0930
>From: Mark Smith
>	<nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
>Subject: Re: [Re:
>	http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org>
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <20100426124317.1d02d49c at opy.nosense.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930
>Mark Smith <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000
>> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400
>> > > Richard Barnes <richard.barnes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad
>> > > > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
>> > > 
>> > > My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about
>> > > robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's
>> > > internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being
>> > > available and being assigned global address space. That's what the
>> > > global only people are saying.
>> > > 
>> > > (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP
>> > > login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got
>> > > address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
>> > 
>> > I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to
>> > that one -- the link-local address.
>> > 
>> 
>> Ever tried to ping a link local address?
>> 
>> If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it
>> some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is.
>> 
>
>To make it easier, here's a clue:
>
>$ ip -6 route show | grep fe80
>fe80::/64 dev eth1  proto kernel  metric 256  mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
>fe80::/64 dev tun6to4  proto kernel  metric 256  mtu 1472 advmss 1412 hoplimit 4294967295
>fe80::/64 dev pan0  proto kernel  metric 256  mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
>
>
>(eth1 is my wired/wireless LAN, tun6to4 is my IPv6 6to4 tunnel, and pan0 is my bluetooth LAN)
>
>
>> 
>> > - Matt
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > "You are capable, creative, competent, careful.  Prove it."
>> > 		-- Seen in a fortune cookie
>> > 
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:23:32 -0500
>From: Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
>Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: )
>To: Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <4BD51544.5030707 at brightok.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>>
>>>> The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof
>>>> of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts.
>>>
>>> I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA
>>> mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up
>>> and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider).  I get alocated my /26 and it
>>> doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can
>>> talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.).
>>>
>> 
>> I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP.
>> 
>
>I personally love it, as do my customers who don't care much for cpe's 
>that do NAT or having to configure PPP on their devices. Individual 
>vlans or more traditional pvc for each customer, and massive router 
>configs make for fun. Perhaps someday vendors will support it better, 
>but I enjoy the low overhead and stupid cpe.
>
>Oh, and did I mention the customers using switches instead of routers 
>get to enjoy IPv6?
>
>Jack
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:27:18 -0500
>From: Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
>Subject: Re: [Re:
>	http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <4BD51626.4010004 at brightok.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will 
>> work in real life? Using link-local for this kind of end-user 
>> administration of their equipment is doomed to fail. There needs to be a 
>> procedure for devices which are going to get DHCP-PD from the provider, 
>> that they have a certain prefix they use until they actually get the 
>> real PD prefix, so end user dns etc works so it's easy to do 
>> administration of the device.
>
>Last 3 cheap routers. BIG STICKER: INSTALL SOFTWARE BEFORE YOU PLUG THIS 
>ROUTER IN! I doubt many users even use the old "goto 
>http://192.168.1.1/" anymore. That being said, there are private 
>addressing schemes in IPv6 as well. No reason one could be bound to a 
>cpe router with an easy to type address.
>
>
>Jack
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:43:14 +0200 (CEST)
>From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
>Subject: Re: [Re:
>	http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>To: Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004260640450.6768 at uplift.swm.pp.se>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>> Last 3 cheap routers. BIG STICKER: INSTALL SOFTWARE BEFORE YOU PLUG THIS 
>> ROUTER IN! I doubt many users even use the old "goto http://192.168.1.1/" 
>> anymore. That being said, there are private addressing schemes in IPv6 as 
>> well. No reason one could be bound to a cpe router with an easy to type 
>> address.
>
>Yeah, and when I try that on my linux box it won,t install the software 
>for some reason. we need solutions that are cross platform and open, let's 
>not help microsoft any further, thank you.
>
>-- 
>Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:53:15 -0700
>From: Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
>Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: )
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <4BD51C3B.5000002 at rollernet.us>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>On 4/25/10 9:23 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof
>>>>> of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts.
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA
>>>> mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up
>>>> and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider).  I get alocated my /26 and it
>>>> doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can
>>>> talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP.
>>>
>> 
>> I personally love it, as do my customers who don't care much for cpe's
>> that do NAT or having to configure PPP on their devices. Individual
>> vlans or more traditional pvc for each customer, and massive router
>> configs make for fun. Perhaps someday vendors will support it better,
>> but I enjoy the low overhead and stupid cpe.
>> 
>> Oh, and did I mention the customers using switches instead of routers
>> get to enjoy IPv6?
>> 
>
>Don't forget the increased MTU without PPP eating some of it.
>
>~Seth
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:03:01 -0700
>From: Roy <r.engehausen at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: )
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <4BD51E85.3020609 at gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>On 4/25/2010 5:11 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote:
>>    
>>> On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof
>>>> of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts.
>>>>        
>>>
>>> I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA
>>> mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up
>>> and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider).  I get alocated my /26 and it
>>> doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can
>>> talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.).
>>>
>>>      
>> I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP.
>>
>> ~Seth
>>
>>
>>    
>
>
>My old company does it this way.   Made life very easy.  Most consumer 
>grade routers come set for DHCP out of the box so it is plug and play.
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:54:05 +0930
>From: Mark Smith
>	<nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
>Subject: Re: [Re:
>	http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
>To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Message-ID: <20100426145405.7947d206 at opy.nosense.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:42:31 -0700
>Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> On Apr 25, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400
>> > Richard Barnes <richard.barnes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad
>> >> ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about
>> > robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's
>> > internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being
>> > available and being assigned global address space. That's what the
>> > global only people are saying.
>> > 
>> Your internet connectivity, by definition, depends on an internet link
>> being available.  No link, no connection.  Simple as that.
>> 
>> Now, if you're talking about multihoming, I, as one of the global only
>> people, am suggesting that you get your global addresses from ARIN
>> and advertise it to both of your upstreams.
>> 
>> I know this is not popular with many of the ISPs out there because there
>> is a cost to that and a scale factor that still has yet to be addressed in the
>> IP routing paradigm. However, I think that will happen anyway.
>> 
>> Alternatively, even if you want to do some funky NAT-based solution,
>> there's nothing wrong with using GUA on the internal side of the NAT
>> to your PA prefixes outside. That way, when you get the opportunity to
>> remove that NAT cruft from your environment, you already have usable
>> addresses and you don't have to renumber.
>> 
>> > (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP
>> > login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got
>> > address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
>> 
>> That's what Link Local is for.
>> 
>> fe80::<EUI-64>%<interface>
>> 
>> For example, if the CPE is connected to the customer's network on eth0
>> and the CPE mac address is 00:45:4b:b9:02:be, you could go to:
>> 
>> http://[fe80::0245:4bff:feb9:02be]%eth0
>> 
>
>Would you want to be asking residential customers (your other half,
>mother, father, sister etc. - not a tech like you) to work that out and
>then type that in? Would you want to be running the helpdesk that
>supports those customers, considering the chance of error there is
>(selecting the wrong interface, typos etc. etc.)
>
>The IPv6 Internet needs to be at least as user friendly as IPv4, so
>asking residential customers to type in anything harder than an IPv4
>address is unacceptable.
>
>Adding in an interface name to a literal IPv6 address is effectively
>specifying a subnet, without specifying a subnet. ULAs (announced in
>RAs) make this easier, because you're not creating the requirement for
>applications to have to understand both literal LL IPv6 addresses as
>well as qualifying interface names.
>
>Regards,
>Mark.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>NANOG mailing list
>NANOG at nanog.org
>https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
>End of NANOG Digest, Vol 27, Issue 158
>**************************************