From: Nick Buraglio <nick@buraglio.com>
To: Dave Taht <davet@teklibre.net>
Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] dhcpv6-pd details
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 21:21:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGB08_dRA0CgAYptbsJGTW7+00QLDT28GNQ3p7uJuuKzJHmmGw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FAEA212-C3A2-49E2-856C-33AEB864C75D@teklibre.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4360 bytes --]
Once we get a bit for there I’ll send it over. It’s not my idea, I’m a
contributor so I’ll need to ask first.
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 6:56 PM Dave Taht <davet@teklibre.net> wrote:
>
>
> On May 17, 2021, at 2:02 PM, Nick Buraglio <nick@buraglio.com> wrote:
>
> The issue with this methodology (which I have used myself) is that it
> relies on the host stack to do the heavy lifting.
>
>
> Ah, we are talking about two slightly
> different things.
>
> I was unhappy with relying on happy eyeballs for failover in the clients,
> but withdrawing the address that were not working did not work well with
> any clients we had at time.
>
> May I have a peek at your draft?
>
> Our draft handles most, if not all of this at the CPE,
>
>
> It would be cool to implement something better at the cpe.
>
> which will allow for a significant amount of flexibility and reduction of
> complexity at the host layer. That is a fairly large oversight in the
> operational model for 90% of v6 users that aren't running BGP. One goal we
> have is to reduce the time to connectivity failover and make deterministic
> IPv6 paths easily implemented by non-technical folks, and to create a
> standard for all CPE to implement with as minimal CPU as possible.
>
> nb
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:59 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 12:48 PM Nick Buraglio <nick@buraglio.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I have this working now between my providers with straight routing and
>> gateway checking, but it’s pretty easily doable other ways with platforms
>> like routerOS or pfsense.
>> > FWIW, I’m working with some others on an IETF draft proposal that will
>> hopefully solve the plaguing problem of multiple IPv6 PD or otherwise
>> provider assigned address blocks that will make a lot of that easier, too.
>>
>> Hmm? We solved this long ago in cerowrt, openwrt, and in linux, by
>> using "source specific routing", which is the default for many openwrt
>> derived OSes.
>>
>> Basically it looks like this:
>>
>> ip route add from 2001:abcd::/56 via whatever
>> ip route add from 2001:dbcd::/56 via whatever2
>>
>> You then distribute both sets of ipv6 addresses to the clients. Simple
>> clean and it solved the bcp38 problem because there is no
>> default route for any but these ipv6 addresses in the system. It works
>> well for vpns also.
>>
>> Happy eyeballs takes care of the rest.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-08
>> describes how we added it to the babel routing protocol
>> as well, so best hops can be easily chosen in a more complex network.
>> In case I had 5+ comcast uplinks spread across a wifi campus so having
>> multiple uplinks and failover was needed. It's been up and running
>> for... 7 years?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-specific_routing also made it
>> into a few other places.
>>
>> I'm pretty certain every other OS completely missed this key feature
>> of course including your mikrotik
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > nb
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:36 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 17 May 2021, Nick Buraglio wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Inline
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:15 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Starlink provides a router, also? I'm so confused. I thought the
>> dishy
>> >> >> was all there was. Care to tear it apart and describe what's in it?
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as the "router" is concerned, it's very much a consumer grade
>> >> > device that is managed via the mobile app. I hated it, so I took it
>> >> > out. It's still up in the attic. near the cable conduit, if I recall.
>> >>
>> >> Fantastic, I was hoping it would be something like this. I think this
>> opens up a
>> >> lot of more useful options (including more easily doing failover
>> between the
>> >> dish and other network options)
>> >>
>> >> David Lang
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Latest Podcast:
>> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6791014284936785920/
>>
>> Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6746 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-18 2:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-17 18:58 Nick Buraglio
2021-05-17 19:15 ` Dave Taht
2021-05-17 19:30 ` Nick Buraglio
2021-05-17 19:36 ` David Lang
2021-05-17 19:48 ` Nick Buraglio
2021-05-17 19:59 ` Dave Taht
2021-05-17 21:02 ` Nick Buraglio
2021-05-17 23:56 ` Dave Taht
2021-05-18 2:21 ` Nick Buraglio [this message]
2021-05-18 6:51 ` Gert Doering
2021-05-17 19:37 ` Nathan Owens
2021-05-18 8:33 ` Annika Wickert
2021-05-18 11:37 ` Nick Buraglio
2021-05-18 11:41 ` Annika Wickert
2021-05-18 14:48 ` Nick Buraglio
2021-05-18 14:50 ` Annika Wickert
2021-06-06 3:41 ` Darrell Budic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGB08_dRA0CgAYptbsJGTW7+00QLDT28GNQ3p7uJuuKzJHmmGw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=nick@buraglio.com \
--cc=Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
--cc=davet@teklibre.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox