<div dir="ltr">Thanks for the pointer. Very interesting summary.<div><br></div><div style>In your research have you found it to be something many people have considered during the design stage, or was your conversation often the first time people had heard of the idea?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Thanks,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>- Mike</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 April 2013 12:32, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:evyncke@cisco.com" target="_blank">evyncke@cisco.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="FR" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div style="direction:ltr;font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">For your information, Michael (in cc) and I wrote an IETF draft presenting the pros and cons of this approach:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-03" style="font-family:Tahoma;font-size:10pt" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-03</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments are welcome</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<span>ipv6</span>-ops-<span>bounces+evyncke</span>=<a href="mailto:cisco.com@lists.cluenet.de" target="_blank">cisco.com@lists.cluenet.de</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ipv6-ops-" target="_blank">ipv6-ops-</a><span>bounces+evyncke</span>=<a href="mailto:cisco.com@lists.cluenet.de" target="_blank">cisco.com@lists.cluenet.de</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike Jones<br>
<b>Sent:</b> samedi 6 avril 2013 13:15<br>
<b>To:</b> Sander Steffann<br>
<b>Cc:</b> IPv6 operators forum<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: IPv6 Addressing Question</span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6 April 2013 11:30, Sander Steffann <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl" target="_blank">sander@steffann.nl</a>> wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Mike,</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
> IPv6 routing protocols seem in some cases to exclusively use automatic link local addresses. Even for manual configuration, link locals deal with the ND exhaustion attack problem in the core quite nicely, while also simplifying address management.<br>
><br>
> Are there practical reasons for global addresses on router interfaces?</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Pinging interface endpoints for debugging and monitoring, being able to see which interface is used in a traceroute, stuff like that. Routing protocols can work perfectly fine without global addresses, but netadmins
have a harder time with just link locals :-) But true: it is something that I have tested in the lab, and it does reduce the attack surface of the network a bit.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Sander</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is it actually that useful to see 50% entered london from nyc on interface nyc1-0.lon2.core and 50% on nyc1-1.lon2.core? I believe in theory the egress interface is theoretically shown in traceroute which would be useful if that actually
happened, but i'm not sure the ingress interface you see in practice is as useful once the packet has reached that hop?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although I see your point about being able to ping eth3-0.lon2.core and eth3-1.lon2.core from nyc and have each point to a specific link to check them independently. I had considered that if you were testing this link you would do it from
nyc using eg fe80::2%lon1, however doing that without logging in to the router is useful.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Mike</p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>