nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks () vt edu>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 17:58:39 -0400
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 17:47:24 -0400, bzs () theworld com said:
All a strictly IPv4 only host/router would need to understand in that case is the IHL, which it does already, and how to interpret whatever flag/option is used to indicate the presence of additional address bits mostly to ignore it or perhaps just enough to know to drop it if it's not implemented.
So... how would a strict IPv4 router handle the case where 8.8.4.5.13.9/40 should be routed to Cogent, but 8.8.4.5.17.168/40 should be routed via Hurricane Electric, and no you can't just route to wherever 8.8.4.5 goes because there's yet another peering war and nobody's baked a cake yet, so sending packets for either route to the wrong link will cause blackholing?
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment William Herrin (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 10)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 09)
- Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Tony Finch (Oct 10)
- RE: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Kevin Menzel (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Forrest Christian (List Account) (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Stephen Satchell (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Denis Fondras (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 07)