From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ww0-f47.google.com (mail-ww0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5E0220024C for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by wgbdt13 with SMTP id dt13so1389467wgb.28 for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dave.taht@gmail.com designates 10.180.14.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.14.230; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dave.taht@gmail.com designates 10.180.14.230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dave.taht@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=dave.taht@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.14.230]) by 10.180.14.230 with SMTP id s6mr6704818wic.2.1330703768650 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:56:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XZPhCrorKhjM5QxcV0xS6/WydBI1kqDsEEFnWpn1sxI=; b=BlPaWjvd/P2sv8Z6A2Pul0IIEwopUXu8k78RxA6FzeCLOg2gbIPES11woxRK+xqa0Z ffr5GbFd1eAU1K5hgMbzyatWDCqMtvlXQYZ04LoxHvHvAhDp5SRPTLeJc+IQmnwkomTM zOEiK6fgooxSG6Xz3/S2YeLudD/vTegb9LVjhdvcz/GcfIuTBhY9uM7faSSGOgYZtUZX BNlwROrWU1Chf+bX17N6coo+wuPGNwqnMjsNxYduuW7OBaioLfKRLQsHk8AmNaUbQFbC ufWnUkqIbzxj45BPFMAofruPft+xxDffT9bNJxRdSybbvWWxV4RlX4FOaohhrJgi+7Hm lJUQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.14.230 with SMTP id s6mr5363667wic.2.1330703768457; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.151.8 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:56:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1E158A98-D7F5-489F-89B6-B1673FBB8E84@intermapper.com> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:56:08 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Richard Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] CeroWrt port numbering X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:56:11 -0000 On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Richard Brown wrote: > > I don't (yet) have facilities for testing IPv6 here, so I can't offer any= advice I'm going to get to where I have a ula generating script to make that easier. soon. (unfinished draft in ceropackages/ipv6/ipv6policy) >>> - I'm a little surprised that the babel interfaces both have ...224/32.= (But I don't know anything about babel...) >> >> Actually that's an 'AHCP'-ism. Babel is capable of mesh routing, and >> with p2p wireless links nothing more than a /32 or /128 (for ipv6) is >> needed to be distributed on mesh node links. >> >> It makes failover simpler in the mesh routing case. > > I was just curious whether they were meant to be the same /32 address... yes. The routing scheme figures out the right interface with using the /32 or a /128 on the same ip. www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/babel/wbmv4.pdf I'd been doing mesh networking for a long time prior to this project. I still find it kind of wierd to disconnect from my wired interface and go wireless and lose all my ssh connections. Others seem to find this normal, but it makes me mildly nuts. with a full mesh config, which is not the default cero can fails over to wireless in a split second, moves back to wired in a few seconds when you plug in the wired connection, no connection loss, no muss no fuss. > >>> - I'm confused about the OUI's for the interfaces. As expected, C4:3D:C= 7... is the OUI for Netgear. But C6:3D:C7... isn't allocated to anyone. Is = that by design? >> >> Two issues: >> >> There is no separate mac address for one of the network devices on the >> wndr, so we take a known good address from one of the devices, and >> flip the 'local mac' bit. > > Ahah. I learn something every day. The 0x02 bit of the most significant b= yte is the "local" bit; the 0x01 bit is the multicast bit. See: =A0http://e= n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationally_Unique_Identifier > >> Each wireless VIF creates it's own mac address as well, based on >> incrementing the underlying mac, and I don't remember the algo >> offhand. > > Yes, that makes sense. But... > > I still don't understand the reasoning behind the mix and match (see list= below). Why wouldn't you put all the wireless together as C4:... and Ether= net on the other? Or divide by 2.4GHz or 5GHz? or Secure vs. Guest, or some= other scheme? (Or is it purposely to prevent people like me from imputing = meaning where none is needed? :-) I think your diagnosis is correct. >>> - I don't understand the pattern of the OUIs for the interfaces: why is= the C4 prefix issued to the Ethernet ge00 and wireless sw00 and sw10, whil= e C6 goes to Ethernet se00 and the remaining wireless interfaces? >>> >>> - I also note that the MAC addresses sort to an odd order, intermixing = ethernet and wireless. (This is related to the previous item.) >>> >>> sw00 =A0 =A0C4:3D:C7:9D:E3:9A >>> ge00 =A0 =A0C4:3D:C7:9D:E3:9B >>> sw10 =A0 =A0C4:3D:C7:9D:E3:9C >>> >>> se00 =A0 =A0C6:3D:C7:9D:E3:9A >>> gw00 =A0 =A0C6:3D:C7:9D:E3:9B >>> gw01 =A0 =A0C6:3D:C7:9D:E3:9C >>> gw10 =A0 =A0C6:3D:C7:9D:E3:9D >>> gw11 =A0 =A0C6:3D:C7:9D:E3:9E >> >> Hopefully what I wrote above sort of explains this. >> >>> - Finally, I haven't fired up 6to4 or anything, but will the global IP = address assignments be randomized more than the local (fe80) address? >> >> Not sure what you mean here. > > Privacy advocates are saying that the "easy way" to create a global IPv6 = address is bad: it's too easy to plop the MAC address in the lower 64 bits = of your address, and then the bad guys can use that as another (really powe= rful) tracking identifier. This is clearly not a CeroWrt-specific issue, an= d it's actively in discussion. (See, for example Barrera et al, in the Usen= ix Vol 36, Number 1, https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/105= 438-Barrera.pdf ) This debate has been going on for a decade. I would like all those trying to make ipv6 even harder for mere mortals to use to go off and work on ipv7, hip, and the like. DNS naming has been hopelessly screwed up as it is, and while I'm a big privacy advocate, I'd like ip addresses to be mapped to DNS names and I figure that that will bug that crowd, too. See also 'dname debacle' http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg08079.html > Thanks! > > Rich > > --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://www.bufferbloat.net