[195797] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Sep 16 04:32:45 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <87EE9BDE-D101-4E3B-A608-411315D467DE@nvcube.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:54:39 -0400
To: Nikolay Shopik <shopik@nvcube.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Thomas Bellman <bellman@nsc.liu.se>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Sep 15, 2017, at 6:02 AM, Nikolay Shopik <shopik@nvcube.net> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On 11 Sep 2017, at 21:55, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 3:35 AM, Nikolay Shopik =
<shopik+lists@nvcube.net> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On 10/09/2017 14:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>>> However I don't think market would generally appreciate the
>>>> implications linklocal brings to traceroute, where least bad option
>>>> would be just to originate hop-limit exceeded from loop0, with no
>>>> visibility on actual interface.
>>>=20
>>> rfc5837 would help but it seems market universally ignore it for =
some reason unknown to me (lack of interest and IPv6 adoption?)
>>>=20
>>> We find LL is simpler, operation wise at some cases.
>>=20
>>=20
>> How=E2=80=99s that work out for you on routers with the same MAC =
address on multiple interfaces when you=E2=80=99re trying to =
troubleshoot ECMP trace routes?
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>=20
> We dont have such cases where LL used but i belive rfc i mention is =
exactly solve that problem
It _MIGHT_ help in some circumstances if it were ubiquitously or =
universally implemented, however, as you yourself noted, it is not.
You were offering advice to someone without investigating the =
characteristics of his network. That advice could well have negative =
tradeoffs which you neglected to mention. I felt a duty to point them =
out.
Owen
