Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121
From: Savyasachi Choudhary <savyasachi.choudhary () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:05:54 +0530

I have a doubt in ISIS.
While redistributing routes from other protocols, how the metric is decided?
OSPF has deccribed this in RFC 2328 Section 16.4 :

                '4) Let X be the cost specified by the preferred routing
table

            entry for the ASBR/forwarding address, and Y the cost
            specified in the LSA.  X is in terms of the link state
            metric, and Y is a type 1 or 2 external metric.

        (5) Look up the routing table entry for the destination N.  If
            no entry exists for N, install the AS external path to N,
            with next hop equal to the list of next hops to the
            forwarding address, and advertising router equal to ASBR.
            If the external metric type is 1, then the path-type is set
            to type 1 external and the cost is equal to X+Y.  If the
            external metric type is 2, the path-type is set to type 2
            external, the link state component of the route's cost is X,

and the type 2 cost is Y.'

What is the behavior in ISIS?

Regards,
Savyasachi
7676077879


On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:01 AM, <nanog-request () nanog org> wrote:

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: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates)
  2. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews)
  3. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates)
  4. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews)
  5. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Joel Jaeggli)
  6. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Owen DeLong)
  7. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews)
  8. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Matthew Kaufman)
  9. Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective (Joel Jaeggli)
 10. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:00:19 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: George Bonser <gbonser () seven com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <4D532A93.50504 () brightok net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
Bridge only CPE's given off this node.

    1043 IP addresses handed out
    1024 Unique interfaces

Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :)


Jack




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:00:45 +1100
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: david raistrick <drais () icantclick org>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <20110210000045.EA41D9DCA79 () drugs dv isc org>


In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102091459200.15471 () murf icantclick org>,
david rai
strick writes:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:

Scott Helms <khelms () ispalliance net> writes:

IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
layer 2 gear

I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long?
15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media you

And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they
could purchase that -would- support v6?   At -best- during the last 5
years, but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with
adequate v6 support.

And who's fault is that?  The ISP's and the vendors.  The ISP's
could have been requesting IPv6 support.  The ISP's could have been
running trials and providing feedback to the vendors.  The vendors
could have asked the ISP's to trail their IPv6 products.

We have been saying for years "make sure you are ready".  That means
buying and testing equipment.  Lots of those that tested went on to
production years ago.

As a vendor we like feedback on our products, good or bad.  It's
hard to work in a vacuum.

--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:01:46 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <4D532AEA.2090505 () brightok net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade
schedule allows.  Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade
NAT.

ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests, and is native v6.


Jack



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:07:26 +1100
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: "George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <20110210000726.3CABE9DCC09 () drugs dv isc org>


In message <
5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC1397D () RWC-EX1 corp seven com>, "
George Bonser" writes:
Cost's might be lower but service will be worse. NAT breaks a lot of
applications file sharing will not work properly and running your own
web server at home will not work properly. Well you always get what
you
pay for and people will buy any crap if it is cheap enough.
=20
Jens

While that is true, it is no worse than the situation right now.  In the
US, the vast majority of users are already behind a NAT (I would say
over 90% of them are) so they are already experiencing this breakage. =20

But for the most part they can work around breakages with a single NAT.
Double NAT prevents most of the work arounds working.

Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:08:10 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: George Bonser <gbonser () seven com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <4D532C6A.20209 () bogus com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 2/9/11 3:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their customers.

Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I have
had has NATed me.  I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT
when I went broadband.  I have a friend that has another service and she
is NATed too.  Boot up in her network and you get 192.168.1.x

The the cpe... In all likelihood it has a public ip on the outside.








------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:10:46 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: david raistrick <drais () icantclick org>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <582356A9-5ADC-4244-8BA0-EE1F2F3EF388 () delong com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:16 PM, david raistrick wrote:

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:

I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long?
15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media
you

And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they
could purchase that -would- support v6?   At -best- during the last 5 years,
but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate
v6 support.

This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it from
their
vendors during that time.


I was purchasing for and building small SP networks during that time.

Requiring v6 of our vendors would have meant we just never got anything,
so we'd have never provided service.   Come to think if it, maybe it -would-
have been better for everyone involved (except those of us who just got
paychecks and experience out of it) to just simply not do it - but we didn't
know that at the time 15 years ago!

Requiring it delivered day one, sure. Putting in a requirement for "Will
support" so that they are required to provide an upgrade path, OTOH, to me
seemed like it was basic good business sense. It worked out pretty well for
the organizations I was working for back then. We got upgradeable hardware
and the vendors got awareness of the demand. Admittedly, I wasn't working in
the last mile arena. However, pressuring vendors is possible without
sacrificing immediate needs.


Vendor C and J don't provide gear that fits into all network topologies
(WISPs, MTU DSL, and smallish ADSL roll outs come to mind, certain during
the time period in question.  Sure, they eventually bought products in those
markets...but even still, I had sub 6 figure budgets to build with - I
certainly had no leverage).

I don't think that networks with sub-6-figure buildouts are the ones we're
too worried about right now.
They can probably upgrade for sub-6-figure amounts.

Owen




------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:22:31 +1100
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: Scott Helms <khelms () ispalliance net>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <20110210002231.23F0E9DCFDD () drugs dv isc org>


In message <4D531B52.70404 () ispalliance net>, Scott Helms writes:
On 2/9/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:00 PM, david raistrick wrote:

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:

Scott Helms<khelms () ispalliance net>  writes:

IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
layer 2 gear
I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how
long?
15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media
you
And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they
coul
d purchase that -would- support v6?   At -best- during the last 5 years,
but
I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate
v6 su
pport.

This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it from
the
ir
vendors during that time.

Owen



Absolutely, just as the ISPs didn't see demand, and don't today, from
their users and thus the circle of blame is complete :)

And some of their customers have been asking for IPv6 all along.

I started asking my ISP at home in 2003.  I suspect if all the ISPs
here were honest they would say that they have had a trickle of
IPv6 requests for the last 8 years.

Mark

Date:    Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:54:05 +1000
To:      Mark_Andrews () isc org
From:    cablesupport () optusnet com au
Subject: Re: [TT#6556559] HELPDESK Feedback Form - Mon Jun 16 09:52:50 2003

Return-Path: nobody () pts optusnet com au
Delivery-Date: Mon Jun 16 10:00:00 2003
Return-Path: <nobody () pts optusnet com au>
X-Original-To: marka () farside isc org
Delivered-To: marka () farside isc org
X-Loop:  pts
Reply-To: cablesupport () optusnet com au

Hello,

Thank you for your email regarding the OptusNet Cable service.

At the moment there are no plans for any IPv6 deployment, when this is due
to happen we will notify all customers.

Regards,
Alex
OptusNet Cable Technical Support

--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:27:51 -0800
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <4D533107.5010202 () matthew at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 2/9/2011 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so that
individual nodes in the home network get global IPs.
Bridge only CPE's given off this node.

    1043 IP addresses handed out
    1024 Unique interfaces

Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :)


Jack


And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for
IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class
of home appliances will need its own subnet.

Matthew Kaufman



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:29:54 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
To: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <4D533182.6020505 () bogus com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.

If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events,
I will
be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.

program committee would no doubt love to hear from you.


Owen

On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:

With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind
of
puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple
of
NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)

-Mike


On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
wrote:

On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:

The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break
my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6. But
that's not the worst part... as the folks my customers interact with
over the next couple of years make their first not-quite-correct IPv6
deployments, my access to them is going to break again. And again. And
again. And I won't have the foggiest idea who's next until I get the
call that such-and-such isn't working right.


What scares me most is that every time I upgrade a router to support
needed
hardware or some badly needed IPv6 feature, something else breaks.
Sometimes
it's just the router crashes on a specific IPv6 command entered at CLI
(C)
or as nasty as NSR constantly crashing the slave (J); the fixes
generally
requiring me to upgrade again to the latest cutting edge releases which
everyone hates (where I'm sure I'll find MORE bugs).

The worst is when you're the first to find the bug(which I'm not even
sure
how it's possible given how simplistic my configs are, isis
multitopology,
iBGP, NSR, a few acls and route-maps/policies), it takes 3-6 months or
so to
track it down, and then it's put only in the next upcoming release (not
out
yet) and backported to the last release.


Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it)









------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:30:46 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
To: matthew () matthew at
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Message-ID: <4D5331B6.60902 () brightok net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 2/9/2011 6:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for
IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class
of home appliances will need its own subnet.

I wonder if their RIR justification was for /64 to household or /48. :)

Jack



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG () nanog org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

End of NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121
**************************************



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
  • Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121 Savyasachi Choudhary (Apr 21)
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault