nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 01:37:51 +0200
On 10 October 2014 00:37, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> wrote:NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with usingunnumbered interfaces. As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using private IP addresses.
I see nothing in section 8 that is broken in my network. My public loopback address is in DNS and reverse DNS works fine too.
And see Section 9.
I see nothing in section 9 that is broken in my network. Traceroute works perfectly. You do not get a string of * * * back. You get the IP of the loopback which in turn goes through reverse DNS to tell you what router is processing that step. The only difference between a traceroute using unnumbered interfaces and using numbered interfaces, is that you only get information about the router and not the link.
My point is that *analogous* issues arise with unnumbered interfaces. Loopback-only addressing isn't sufficient for troubleshooting purposes and other routine operational activities.
That is really up to me? 99% of my interfaces are unnumbered by the virtue of being on access switches that simply have no layer 3 capability other than management. Nobody is crazy enough to assign /30s to end users anymore anyway. It is not my business to sell backbone links. I sell end user links and those are unnumbered in my network and everyone else too. I claim this argument is mostly BS. Information about link in traceroute is nice to have. It is not need to have. I have never been in doubt of what traceroute was telling me. Besides I have more effective methods to troubleshoot my links.
The thing is that we will only use ONE public address for a router. Andthe router will be using that address for traceroute, ICMP et al. And thereforeRFC 6752 does not apply.Again, see Section 9. *Analogous* issues arise in networks with unnumbered interfaces. I'm aware that PMTU-D will work with the setup you propose.
That is not the only thing that works. Everything works. The only "problem" anyone has been able to point to is that you lose link information in traceroute and get host information in its stead. It is a small loss.
You might want to take a look at Appendix A, too.
What about it? That is incorrect. You've been told repeatedly that troubleshooting
unnumbered links is highly suboptimal; you've merely dismissed those arguments for reasons best known to yourself.
Maybe because on that one topic I am more an expert than you: I have experience troubleshooting my network, you don't. Regards, Baldur
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Owen DeLong (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Baldur Norddahl (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Roland Dobbins (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Baldur Norddahl (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out William Herrin (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Roland Dobbins (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Baldur Norddahl (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Roland Dobbins (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Baldur Norddahl (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Roland Dobbins (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out Baldur Norddahl (Oct 09)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Faisal Imtiaz (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Roland Dobbins (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Faisal Imtiaz (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Roland Dobbins (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Tim Raphael (Oct 11)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Roland Dobbins (Oct 11)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Sander Steffann (Oct 12)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Randy Carpenter (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Enno Rey (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation for Loopback Address Måns Nilsson (Oct 10)