ipv6 next-hop link-local

S.P.Zeidler spz at serpens.de
Sat Feb 19 12:52:41 CET 2011


Thus wrote Mark Smith (nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org):

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:07:22 +0100
> Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> > Of course one could run an exchange point on link-local addresess - but
> > I have not ever seen one yet, and I do not think that the operational
> > difficulties will outweigh the benefits.
> >  (Which benefits, exactly?  

> There's no real need for GTSM if link locals are used, and the threat of
> SYN or similar control plane attacks from off-link sources disappears.

And you get exactly the same set of problems that you'd get if you ran a
v4 exchange on private addresses.

> > Gert Doering
> >         -- NetMaster
> > -- 
> > did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> I think the fact that you're putting that in your signature indicates
> we really shouldn't be making judgements about what will be common IPv6
> practice at this stage of IPv6 deployment.

It's unclear to me how you get from that signature to that conclusion.

> I think most people will be
> applying IPv4 thinking to IPv6 deployments, so they may not be aware
> that link-locals can be used for this purpose. 5 to 10 years time might
> be a better time to observe what is common practice.

"Common practise" doesn't need to equal "actually a good idea", especially
if you have lots of people trying to apply solutions to another protocols
problems to a protocol that doesn't have them. :) Like jumping through
hoops to preserve addresses by reflex.

spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list