Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check
"Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com> Sat, 12 February 2011 07:09 UTC
Return-Path: <frnkblk@iname.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5401A3A6894 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:09:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1U-lZqAitk4 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from premieronline.net (smtp2-3.premieronline.net [96.31.0.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3413A6850 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=199.120.69.27;
Received: from BULKFAMLAPTOP (unverified [199.120.69.27]) by premieronline.net (SurgeMail 5.0n) with ESMTP id 22252651-1729245 for multiple; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 01:09:33 -0600
From: Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: 'Pekka Savola' <pekkas@netcore.fi>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <4D5336F8.9080506@gmail.com> <61F0E9D3-19D1-4F26-A167-022FBB618834@apple.com> <20110210072104.GA5220@srv03.cluenet.de> <A11E55C0-C1F9-43BA-9E8D-0508733EB46F@apple.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1102101844150.23208@netcore.fi> <09746C7E-1BB8-4DAD-9FE6-9FC05FE9AE87@apple.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1102102017490.26532@netcore.fi> <4D543F94.8090505@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1102110832160.14368@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1102110832160.14368@netcore.fi>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 01:09:32 -0600
Message-ID: <019a01cbca83$cc7f9170$657eb450$@iname.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AcvJtvp/oI5Ex71gTBqSPrF2L/+UPAAzMr5g
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: fbulk@premieronline.net
X-SpamDetect: : 0.000000
X-Info: aspam skipped due to (useraccess)
X-MyRbl: Color=Yellow Age=0 Spam=0 Notspam=0 Stars=0 Good=0 Friend=4 Surbl=0 Catch=0 r=0 ip=199.120.69.27
X-IP-stats: Incoming Outgoing Last 0, First 706, in=9512564, out=36793, spam=0 Known=true ip=199.120.69.27
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:09:21 -0000
Someone willing to write a NAGIOS plugin? Frank -----Original Message----- From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 12:42 AM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > " Unless the answer to all these questions is 'yes', subscribers will > be no worse off, and possibly better off, if the route to 192.88.99.1 > is blocked and generates 'destination unreachable'. At least one > host implementation (Windows XP) starts with a 'ping' to the anycast > address, so will quickly learn that 6to4 is not available [Savola]." I do not know if an (IPv4) destination unreachable will propagate to the application (or the stack). Windows uses the method as a qualification procedure (if it doesn't work, the 6to4 relay is not used) and as such it won't get reported to the applications in such a manner that e.g. ICMPv6 error would be or how you probably hope that ICMPv4 would be. So, I would suggest the following caveat to the former (unless we get info on how implementations react -- preferable), and more precise on the methodology: Unless the answer to all these questions is 'yes', subscribers will be no worse off, and possibly better off, if the route to 192.88.99.1 is blocked and generates an IPv4 'destination unreachable'. There is little operational experience with this, however. Some implementations also perform some form of 6to4 relay qualification. For example, a host implementation (Windows) tests the protocol-41 reachability by sending an ICMPv6 echo request with Hop Limit=1 to the relay, expecting a response or Hop Limit exceeded error back. Lack of any response indicates that the 6to4 relay does not work and it is turned off [Savola]. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
- [v6ops] draft-carpenter-v6ops-6to4-teredo-advisor… Brian E Carpenter
- [v6ops] 6to4 advisory draft james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] Carrier Grade NAT => ISP-operated NAT… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Carrier Grade NAT => ISP-operated NAT… Jack Bates
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 advisory draft Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 advisory draft Pekka Savola
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 advisory draft Daniel Roesen
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 advisory draft james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check Pekka Savola
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check Pekka Savola
- [v6ops] Carrier Grade NAT => ISP-operated NAT44 (… Daniel Roesen
- Re: [v6ops] Carrier Grade NAT => ISP-operated NAT… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check Nathan Ward
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check Pekka Savola
- Re: [v6ops] Carrier Grade NAT => ISP-operated NAT… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Carrier Grade NAT => ISP-operated NAT… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [v6ops] Carrier Grade NAT => ISP-operated NAT… Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Carrier Grade NAT => ISP-operated NAT… Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] 6to4 reliability check Frank Bulk