help

[马强 <venoy4806 () 163 com>]

在2010-04-26，nanog-request () nanog org 写道：
> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
>       nanog () 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 () nanog org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       nanog-owner () 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 () swm pp se>
> Subject: Re: [Re:
>       http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
> To: Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004260435340.6768 () 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 () swm pp se
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930
> From: Mark Smith
>       <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
> Subject: Re: [Re:
>       http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
> To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer () hezmatt org>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <20100426123151.78654a64 () opy nosense org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000
> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer () 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 () 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 () dougbarton us>
> Subject: Re: [Re:
>       http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
> To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <4BD50281.9040106 () 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 () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
> Subject: Re: [Re:
>       http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
> To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer () hezmatt org>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <20100426124317.1d02d49c () opy nosense org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930
> Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000
> > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer () 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 () 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 () brightok net>
> Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: )
> To: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <4BD51544.5030707 () 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 () brightok net>
> Subject: Re: [Re:
>       http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
> To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <4BD51626.4010004 () 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 () swm pp se>
> Subject: Re: [Re:
>       http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
> To: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004260640450.6768 () 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 () swm pp se
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:53:15 -0700
> From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
> Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: )
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <4BD51C3B.5000002 () 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 () gmail com>
> Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: )
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <4BD51E85.3020609 () 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 () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
> Subject: Re: [Re:
>       http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
> To: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <20100426145405.7947d206 () opy nosense org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:42:31 -0700
> Owen DeLong <owen () 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 () 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 () nanog org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 27, Issue 158
> **************************************