Mailing List Archive: nsp: ipv6

SixXS vs. 6to4

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

oneingray at gmail

Dec 30, 2011, 7:47 PM

Post #1 of 8 (1035 views)
Permalink

SixXS vs. 6to4

It looks like there's a connectivity problem in between the
SixXS.net and 6to4 worlds. Please consider, e. g.:

$ traceroute6 -s 2002:bc78:XXXX::1 \
2001:15c0:XXXX::1
traceroute to 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) from 2002:bc78:XXXX::1, port 33434, from port 50121, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 * * *
…
5 * * *
6 maribor3-te-7-4.amis.net (2001:15c0:ffff:d::d) 146.467 ms 170.284 ms 135.588 ms
7 * * *
…
29 * * *
30 * * *
$

The same destination is reachable via a HE.net 6in4 tunnel from
the same host, like:

$ traceroute6 -s 2001:470:XXXX::1 \
2001:15c0:XXXX::1
traceroute to 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) from 2001:470:XXXX::1, port 33434, from port 50092, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 * * *
…
5 * * *
6 maribor3-te-7-4.amis.net (2001:15c0:ffff:d::d) 147.248 ms 171.618 ms 215.410 ms
7 simbx01.sixxs.net (2001:15c0:ffff:7::2) 171.574 ms 143.399 ms 141.565 ms
8 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) 287.687 ms 325.801 ms 268.182 ms
$

As the traceroutes above start to differ at the link between
2001:15c0:ffff:d::d and 2001:15c0:ffff:7::2, I'd assume that one
of these is in charge.

TIA. And HNY.

--
FSF associate member #7257

tayeb.meftah at gmail

Dec 29, 2011, 11:35 PM

Post #2 of 8 (964 views)
Permalink

Re: SixXS vs. 6to4 [In reply to]

cd /internet/ipv6
rm -Rf sixxs
cd he.net
mkdir tunnel1.he.net
:)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivan Shmakov" <oneingray [at] gmail>
To: <ipv6-ops [at] lists>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 5:47 AM
Subject: SixXS vs. 6to4

> It looks like there's a connectivity problem in between the
> SixXS.net and 6to4 worlds. Please consider, e. g.:
>
> $ traceroute6 -s 2002:bc78:XXXX::1 \
> 2001:15c0:XXXX::1
> traceroute to 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) from
> 2002:bc78:XXXX::1, port 33434, from port 50121, 30 hops max, 60 byte
> packets
> 1 * * *
> …
> 5 * * *
> 6 maribor3-te-7-4.amis.net (2001:15c0:ffff:d::d) 146.467 ms 170.284 ms
> 135.588 ms
> 7 * * *
> …
> 29 * * *
> 30 * * *
> $
>
> The same destination is reachable via a HE.net 6in4 tunnel from
> the same host, like:
>
> $ traceroute6 -s 2001:470:XXXX::1 \
> 2001:15c0:XXXX::1
> traceroute to 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) from 2001:470:XXXX::1,
> port 33434, from port 50092, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> 1 * * *
> …
> 5 * * *
> 6 maribor3-te-7-4.amis.net (2001:15c0:ffff:d::d) 147.248 ms 171.618 ms
> 215.410 ms
> 7 simbx01.sixxs.net (2001:15c0:ffff:7::2) 171.574 ms 143.399 ms
> 141.565 ms
> 8 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) 287.687 ms 325.801 ms 268.182
> ms
> $
>
> As the traceroutes above start to differ at the link between
> 2001:15c0:ffff:d::d and 2001:15c0:ffff:7::2, I'd assume that one
> of these is in charge.
>
> TIA. And HNY.
>
> --
> FSF associate member #7257
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 6756 (20111230) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6756 (20111230) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

tayeb.meftah at gmail

Dec 30, 2011, 8:26 AM

Post #3 of 8 (969 views)
Permalink

Re: SixXS vs. 6to4 [In reply to]

no need to root
internet is open
killall sixxs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivan Shmakov" <oneingray [at] gmail>
To: <ipv6-ops [at] lists>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: SixXS vs. 6to4

>>>>>> Meftah Tayeb <tayeb.meftah [at] gmail> writes:
>
> […]
>
> > cd /internet/ipv6
> > rm -Rf sixxs
> > cd he.net
> > mkdir tunnel1.he.net
> > :)
>
> I'd have to $ ssh root [at] remot first, but alas, I don't know the
> root password there. And even if I'd know, it won't be of any
> help, as the host in question is NAT'ed by the ISP, so no 6in4
> (or 6to4) setup is ever possible. (Not to mention that it's
> against my principles to use root on someone's else system
> without his or her prior consent.)
>
> --
> FSF associate member #7257
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 6757 (20111231) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6757 (20111231) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

jeroen at unfix

Dec 30, 2011, 8:08 PM

Post #4 of 8 (997 views)
Permalink

Re: SixXS vs. 6to4 [In reply to]

On 2011-12-31 04:47 , Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> It looks like there's a connectivity problem in between the
> SixXS.net and 6to4 worlds.

You actually mean "between the SixXS AMIS PoP and 6to4", there are quite
a few networks involved in "SixXS".

> Please consider, e. g.:
>
> $ traceroute6 -s 2002:bc78:XXXX::1 \
> 2001:15c0:XXXX::1

Without a full IP address those traceroutes are completely useless.

> traceroute to 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) from 2002:bc78:XXXX::1, port 33434, from port 50121, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> 1 * * *
> …
> 5 * * *
> 6 maribor3-te-7-4.amis.net (2001:15c0:ffff:d::d) 146.467 ms 170.284 ms 135.588 ms
> 7 * * *
> …
> 29 * * *
> 30 * * *

Looks like a lot of packets are lost on some magical links somewhere in
the wild wild Internet.

6to4 is this funny anycasted in IPv4 and IPv6 thing. Lots of Magic there.

I suggest you provide full IPv6 addresses and use for instance
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/traceroute/ for figuring out more about the
various paths it might be taking.

> $
>
> The same destination is reachable via a HE.net 6in4 tunnel from
> the same host, like:
>
> $ traceroute6 -s 2001:470:XXXX::1 \
> 2001:15c0:XXXX::1

Please look up the big difference between 6to4 and 6in4 and other kinds
of configured tunnels.

> traceroute to 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) from 2001:470:XXXX::1, port 33434, from port 50092, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> 1 * * *
> …
> 5 * * *

Are you firewalling that all those hops are missing?

Don't expect a lot of folks to care about 6to4 around this time of year
though, but maybe you are lucky and some 6to4-debugger might help you
out, but you will need to provide full addresses...

A quick fix: use real tunnels, ignore that 6to4 mess.

Maybe 2012 could be the year that 2002::/16 gets disabled like 2006 was
the year that the 6bone died?

Greets,
Jeroen

oneingray at gmail

Dec 31, 2011, 8:40 AM

Post #5 of 8 (956 views)
Permalink

Re: SixXS vs. 6to4 [In reply to]

>>>>> Meftah Tayeb <tayeb.meftah [at] gmail> writes:

[…]

> cd /internet/ipv6
> rm -Rf sixxs
> cd he.net
> mkdir tunnel1.he.net
> :)

I'd have to $ ssh root [at] remot first, but alas, I don't know the
root password there. And even if I'd know, it won't be of any
help, as the host in question is NAT'ed by the ISP, so no 6in4
(or 6to4) setup is ever possible. (Not to mention that it's
against my principles to use root on someone's else system
without his or her prior consent.)

--
FSF associate member #7257

brian.e.carpenter at gmail

Dec 31, 2011, 11:29 AM

Post #6 of 8 (959 views)
Permalink

Re: SixXS vs. 6to4 [In reply to]

Ivan,

Read http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6343

There are many possible explanations for Anycast 6to4 failures. Some of
them are unfixable.

Regards
Brian Carpenter

On 2011-12-31 16:47, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> It looks like there's a connectivity problem in between the
> SixXS.net and 6to4 worlds. Please consider, e. g.:
>
> $ traceroute6 -s 2002:bc78:XXXX::1 \
> 2001:15c0:XXXX::1
> traceroute to 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) from 2002:bc78:XXXX::1, port 33434, from port 50121, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> 1 * * *
> …
> 5 * * *
> 6 maribor3-te-7-4.amis.net (2001:15c0:ffff:d::d) 146.467 ms 170.284 ms 135.588 ms
> 7 * * *
> …
> 29 * * *
> 30 * * *
> $
>
> The same destination is reachable via a HE.net 6in4 tunnel from
> the same host, like:
>
> $ traceroute6 -s 2001:470:XXXX::1 \
> 2001:15c0:XXXX::1
> traceroute to 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) from 2001:470:XXXX::1, port 33434, from port 50092, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> 1 * * *
> …
> 5 * * *
> 6 maribor3-te-7-4.amis.net (2001:15c0:ffff:d::d) 147.248 ms 171.618 ms 215.410 ms
> 7 simbx01.sixxs.net (2001:15c0:ffff:7::2) 171.574 ms 143.399 ms 141.565 ms
> 8 2001:15c0:XXXX::1 (2001:15c0:XXXX::1) 287.687 ms 325.801 ms 268.182 ms
> $
>
> As the traceroutes above start to differ at the link between
> 2001:15c0:ffff:d::d and 2001:15c0:ffff:7::2, I'd assume that one
> of these is in charge.
>
> TIA. And HNY.
>

olipro at 8

Jan 2, 2012, 6:53 PM

Post #7 of 8 (938 views)
Permalink

Re: Re: SixXS vs. 6to4 [In reply to]

On Saturday 31 Dec 2011 23:40:22 Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> I'd have to $ ssh root [at] remot first, but alas, I don't know the
> root password there. And even if I'd know, it won't be of any
> help, as the host in question is NAT'ed by the ISP, so no 6in4
> (or 6to4) setup is ever possible. (Not to mention that it's
> against my principles to use root on someone's else system
> without his or her prior consent.)

He was joking; the fact that it wasn't immediately obvious to you that it
wasn't a joke is worrying - since when have you configured your network by
deleting/creating filesystem folders? (distro initscripts notwithstanding)

oneingray at gmail

Jan 2, 2012, 11:58 PM

Post #8 of 8 (944 views)
Permalink

Re: SixXS vs. 6to4 [In reply to]

>>>>> Olipro <olipro [at] 8> writes:
>>>>> On Saturday 31 Dec 2011 23:40:22 Ivan Shmakov wrote:

>> I'd have to $ ssh root [at] remot first, but alas, I don't know the root
>> password there. And even if I'd know, it won't be of any help, as
>> the host in question is NAT'ed by the ISP, so no 6in4 (or 6to4)
>> setup is ever possible. (Not to mention that it's against my
>> principles to use root on someone's else system without his or her
>> prior consent.)

> He was joking; the fact that it wasn't immediately obvious to you
> that it wasn't a joke is worrying - since when have you configured
> your network by deleting/creating filesystem folders? (distro
> initscripts notwithstanding)

I've understood it as a metaphor, not a joke.

--
FSF associate member #7257

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads