nanog mailing list archives
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:50:10 -0800
Right... Well... The point of the loopback thingy was that you don't renumber the loopback. The address assigned to the loopback is used as the session endpoint identifier, while, the address assigned to the network interface is used as the routing endpoint identifier. So, BGP takes care of deailing with the consequences of renumbering the routing endpoint identifier, and, lo0 remains a consistent session endpoint identifier. This will not scale, but, it does work (e.g. anycast). Owen--On Monday, November 29, 2004 1:39 PM -0500 Joe Abley <jabley () isc org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2004, at 13:36, Owen DeLong wrote:ifconfig le0:1 <newaddr> netmask <newmask> YMMV depending on your operating system.If the old address is removed, then TCP sessions established with the old address as an endpoint will break; hence plumbing TCP sessions to loopback addresses is not a solution to TCP survival over renumbering attempts. That was my point.--On Monday, November 29, 2004 1:28 PM -0500 Joe Abley <jabley () isc org> wrote:On 29 Nov 2004, at 10:58, Andre Oppermann wrote:You can solve the renumber thingie by having all TCP connecting to/from an official IP on the loopback interface. Then the routing code could do its work and route the packets through some some other or renumbered interface.So how do you renumber the loopback interface?
-- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?], (continued)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Andre Oppermann (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Jeroen Massar (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Petri Helenius (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Andre Oppermann (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Joe Abley (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Joe Abley (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Joe Abley (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] bmanning (Nov 30)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] bmanning (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 25)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] bmanning (Nov 26)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 22)
- RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Richard Jimmerson (Nov 14)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Daniel Roesen (Nov 14)
- Re: IPV6 renumbering painless? Owen DeLong (Nov 14)