Get an IPv6 /48 or at least 4 /64 for hackathon

[evyncke@…]

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

[con@…]

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

[evyncke@…]

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
    

[con@…]

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

[evyncke@…]

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

[con@…]

We route it to the .244 and ::244 addresses.

-Con

[evyncke@…]

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

 

[evyncke@…]

Finally, we go it working with some change in the configuration compared to the sheet I received this morning

Thanks

-éric 

[Rick Alfvin]

Milestone renamed