#1101 closed request (fixed)
Get an IPv6 /48 or at least 4 /64 for hackathon
Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | ietf-099 |
Component: | incoming | Keywords: | IPv6 switch routing |
Cc: | My Current Location: | Chez Louis | |
My MAC Address: | My OS: |
Description
As discussed with Joe Clark, Jim Martin, Warren, Clements, ... for the IPv6 mPvD and captive portal hackathon team we need a couple (4 actually) of /64 IPv6 prefixes.
The easiest is probably to route the /48 (or whatever) to port 8 of the switch of SW-30.meeting.ietf.org with legacy address 31.130.225.40.
Of course, we will more than happy to configure any static IPv6 on the router that we will connect on the port 8.
Thanks
-éric
Change history (11)
comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by
Priority: | tbd → minor |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 follow-up: 2 Changed 4 years ago by
Resolution: | fixed |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
It looks like the port 8 is on the right VLAN but the addressing information I got seems wrong. The VRRP messages announce 2001:67c:370:231:678::1 and not the expected 2001:67c:370:231:678::241 (per the BitsNBites IETF NOC Internal graphic I have received). So, I wonder whether the address of the BitNBites router should then be 2001:67c:370:231:678::244 (per the graphic) or 2001:67c:370:231:678::4 (as there are several NS for this address) Thanks in advance -éric On 15/07/17 10:01, "IETF Tickets/NOC" <tickets@meeting.ietf.org> wrote: #1101: Get an IPv6 /48 or at least 4 /64 for hackathon --------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: evyncke@… | Owner: llynch@… Type: request | Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: ietf-98 Component: incoming | Resolution: fixed Keywords: IPv6 switch routing | My Current Location: Chez Louis My MAC Address: | My OS: --------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Changes (by con@…): * priority: tbd => minor * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Eric, This should be plumbed out to that switch port now, and ready for you. Please let me know if you have troubles connecting to the Upstream, and we can troubleshoot it further. By replying to this thread it will re-open the ticket. -Con -- Ticket URL: <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org/ticket/1101#comment:1> IETF Tickets/NOC <https://tickets.meeting.ietf.org> IETF Meeting Tickets - NOC pages
comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by
Owner: | changed from llynch@… to con@… |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → assigned |
comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by
Eric,
Thanks for spotting that, unfortunately it looks like someone assumed that since the /29 that's on that network was .241 that the v6 interface would match, when it doesn't ..
678::1 is the expected router.
Thanks for the update, is it working if you use ::1 ?
-Con
comment:5 follow-up: 5 Changed 4 years ago by
Con, Just to be sure: the ::1 appears like a functionning router indeed but I wonder which address I should use on 2001:67c:370:678::/64 ? I.e. the address where the b&b /48 is routed to ;-) -éric
comment:7 follow-up: 7 Changed 4 years ago by
Con, We still have trouble with the addressing for IPv6 (IPv4 works fine), we see IPv6 NS for 2001:67c:370:231:678::4 which is strange because: - Kind of strange prefix with 5 groups of 16 bits (which could be ok but strange) - Is our interface finally ::4 or ::244 (per previous email ticket) The VRRP also advertises: 2001:67c:370:231:678::1 (also 5 groups of 16 bits, again legit but very weird) Thanks -éric
comment:8 follow-up: 8 Changed 4 years ago by
Finally, we go it working with some change in the configuration compared to the sheet I received this morning Thanks -éric
comment:9 Changed 4 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by
Milestone: | ietf-98 → ietf-99 |
---|
Eric,
This should be plumbed out to that switch port now, and ready for you. Please let me know if you have troubles connecting to the Upstream, and we can troubleshoot it further.
By replying to this thread it will re-open the ticket.
-Con