Subject: [Fwd: Re: About IPv6 private address]

From: blue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:46:33 +0800

Subject: Re: About IPv6 private address
From: blue <[email-masked]>
To: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:45:37 +0800

Fred Baker wrote:

>
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 4:59 AM, blue wrote:
>
>> I want to ask if there's any reserved private IPv6 address? I know  
>> RFC4193 has defined Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses, which is  
>> used to replace deprecated site-local address. However, in user's  
>> perspective, a device will need a well-known address, such as  
>> 192.168.1.1 in IPv4, for a customer to connect to without any  
>> configuration. In RFC 4193, the address' "global ID" is generated  
>> randomly, and the address could not be known in advance.
>
>
> No, there is no such "well known" address. Are you thinking of  
> configuration purposes, such as a Linksys box uses - you http the  
> magic address and configure it?
>
Dear Fred:

Yes, users need to configure our device via http, and if there's no 
well-known IPv6 address, how do users know which address to connect to? 
I have thought about a pre-configured link-local address; however, 
browsers such as Firefox does not support link-local address. Any 
suggestions?

BR,
Yi-Wen

---

From: "Erik Kline" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:35:11 -0800

On 2/3/08, blue <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

Whatever IPv6 address you chose you'd still have to get the customer
to add that network to an interface.  I.e. if you don't listen to RAs
and SLAAC an address (NOTE: assumes RAs and not DHCP(v6)) you'd need
to include instructions on which network to add to the host interface
so the customer could talk to the device.

Can it instead be discoverable somehow?  I.e. let the device SLAAC or
DHCP its address (if possible) and then use SLP or some variant? mDNS
looking for a well-known name?

It's an interesting problem...

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 07:04:20 +0200

Hmm. How about the link-local-scope all routers address? That would  
be FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2.

Yes, in the most general sense that would not work, being multicast.  
But if the operating instructions said "make sure this is the only  
router on the link before doing this", it should work. Small CPE  
routers I have used (Linksys and D-Link) have you plug the host  
directly to the router's UNI, which pretty much nails that  
requirement. I would expect the host to form a link-local address,  
exchange it with the router using ND, and then talk to the router. If  
SCTP is in use, the router could create its own link-local address  
and then exchange addresses (RFC 5061) when it replied.

I'm not altogether sure how a link-local address would be assigned  
using DHCP, so I think link-local requires SAA even if other  
addresses are assigned using DHCP. Ralph will correct me if I'm  
wrong, no doubt.

 From RFC 4291, section 2.7.1:
       All Nodes Addresses:    FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
                               FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:1

    The above multicast addresses identify the group of all IPv6 nodes,
    within scope 1 (interface-local) or 2 (link-local).

       All Routers Addresses:   FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:2
                                FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2
                                FF05:0:0:0:0:0:0:2

    The above multicast addresses identify the group of all IPv6  
routers,
    within scope 1 (interface-local), 2 (link-local), or 5 (site-local).

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:08:12 +1030

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:35:11 -0800

> looking for a well-known name?

Or maybe announce the device's brand and model, as printed on the
outside of the device.

---

From: Peter Sherbin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 06:56:04 -0800 (PST)

> browsers such as Firefox does not support link-local address. Any 

Would this work assuming that you can reach your device anywhere onnet via IPv6:
1. customer turns on your device connected to CPE router/modem
2. device sents a packet to your server
3. server sends back a config file

The above excludes the customer from configuration and such.

Thanks,

Peter

> browsers such as Firefox does not support link-local address. Any 

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:30:28 -0800

Christian,

Just to be sure I understand, you're saying Microsoft has introduced something in Vista that looks a whole lot like a domain name in VeriSign's .NET domain namespace but that isn't really a domain name to deal with some applications that had trouble dealing with IPv6 literals?

Thanks,
-drc

On 2/4/08 8:49 PM, "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Firefox does not do anything there. The name resolution service in Windows Vista resolves names of the form fe80--213-49ff-fe04-507s8.ipv6-literal.net into the corresponding IPv6 address, in that example [fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8]. For Firefox, it is just a name lookup.

We put that feature in Vista because some applications had a very hard time parsing colons and percent signs. It really is a work around...

From: blue [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 7:15 PM
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: About IPv6 private address]

Dear Christian:

Do you mean Firefox on Vista will translate the link-local address to the domain name suffixed "ipv6-literal.net"?

Currently my platform is Microsoft Windows XP instead of Windows Vista. However, I don't consider this behavior is related to the OS version.

Which version is your Firefox, please?

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Christian Huitema wrote:
If you are running Firefox on Windows Vista, you should be able to try http://fe80--213-49ff-fe04-507s8.ipv6-literal.net/

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of blue
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 5:34 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: About IPv6 private address]

Please forgive my dumbness but my Firefox version is 2.0.0.9

My IE could not connect to IPv6 URL either! (IE version 6.0)

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
That is a Firefox configuration issue, I think. I don't see that
problem (with Firefix 2.0.0.7, or with IE).

Is it possible that your browser is going to a proxy?

   Brian

On 2008-02-05 13:24, blue wrote:

Hi,
But after typing a link-local address, Firefox' message shows:

   Unable to find "www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com <http://www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com><http://www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com> "

It translated typed "http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8]" <http://%5Bfe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258%5D><http://%5Bfe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258%5D>  to
"http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com]/" <http://%5Bwww.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com%5D/><http://%5Bwww.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com%5D/> .

However, a global unique IPv6 address worked!

I thought it proved that Firefox does not support link-local address.

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

How come Firefox (or any other browser) knows how to *not* support
link-local addresses? As far as I can tell, it does support them.
Just don't forget the [ ] brackets.

When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::1 <http://%5Bfe80::1><http://%5Bfe80::1> ]/ it gives me
an "unable to connect" message, but that's exactly what I'd expect.
When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%5 <http://%5Bfe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%255><http://%5Bfe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%255> ]/
(my own link-local address) it gives me a "server not found" message,
which is also exactly what I'd expect, since I'm not listening on
port 80.

   Brian

---

From: blue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:14:38 +0800

Dear Christian:

Do you mean Firefox on Vista will translate the link-local address to 
the domain name suffixed "ipv6-literal.net"?

Currently my platform is Microsoft Windows XP instead of Windows Vista. 
However, I don't consider this behavior is related to the OS version.

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Christian Huitema wrote:

> If you are running Firefox on Windows Vista, you should be able to try 
> http://fe80--213-49ff-fe04-507s8.ipv6-literal.net/
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On 
> Behalf Of *blue
> *Sent:* Monday, February 04, 2008 5:34 PM
> *To:* Brian E Carpenter
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: Re: About IPv6 private address]
>
>  
>
>   Unable to find "www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com <http://www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com>"
>
> 
>
>It translated typed "http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8]" <http://%5Bfe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258%5D> to
>
>"http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com]/" <http://%5Bwww.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com%5D/>.
>
> 
>
>When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::1 <http://%5Bfe80::1>]/ it gives me
>
>When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%5 <http://%5Bfe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%255>]/
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:07:16 +1300

Brian

On 2008-02-05 13:24, blue wrote:
>    Unable to find "www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com"
> 
> It translated typed "http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8]" to
> "http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com]/".
> 
>> When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::1]/ it gives me
>> When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%5]/

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:12:37 -0800

Actually, the "ipv6-literal.net" domain is properly registered and all that, so it really is a "Microsoft managed subdomain". But yes, this is a work around for the applications that have trouble parsing IPv6 literals. There is an example of using it for sharing files using IPv6 literal addresses at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/944007. The mechanism is described at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726965.aspx, look for "Support for ipv6-literal.net Names".

From: David Conrad [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:30 PM
To: Christian Huitema; blue
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: About IPv6 private address]

Christian,

Thanks,
-drc

Dear Christian:

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Christian Huitema wrote:

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

   Brian

Hi,

It translated typed "http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8]<http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258]>" <http://%5Bfe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258%5D><http://%5Bfe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258%5D>  to
"http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com]/<http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com]/>" <http://%5Bwww.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com%5D/><http://%5Bwww.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com%5D/> .

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%5<http://[fe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%255> <http://%5Bfe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%255><http://%5Bfe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%255> ]/

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:41:13 +1300

Brian

---

From: blue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:33:48 +0800

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:41:48 -0800

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

   Brian

Hi,

   Unable to find "www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com<http://www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com>"

It translated typed "http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8]"<http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258]> to

"http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com]/"<http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com]/>.

Thanks.

BR,

Yi-Wen

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

suggestions?

When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%5<http://[fe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%255>]/

port 80.

   Brian

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:35:41 -0500

On 5-Feb-2008, at 01:12, Christian Huitema wrote:

> Actually, the “ipv6-literal.net” domain is properly registered and  
> all that, so it really is a “Microsoft managed subdomain”. But yes,  
> this is a work around for the applications that have trouble parsing  
> IPv6 literals. There is an example of using it for sharing files  
> using IPv6 literal addresses at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/ 
> 944007. The mechanism is described athttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726965.aspx 
> , look for “Support for ipv6-literal.net Names”.

It's a shame the authoritative server concerned doesn't actually  
return AAAA records in response to those queries (or, at least, those  
queries which could conceivably result in global-scope answers).

You just know someone on a Windows system is going to publish an URL  
at some point that people not on Windows systems are going to follow,  
and hilarity is going to result.

(But in the absence of an authority server which can give real  
answers, SERVFAIL is probably the right thing.)

[monster:~]% dig 2001-500-2f-0-0-0-0-f.ipv6-literal.net. IN AAAA

; <<>> DiG 9.3.4-P1 <<>> 2001-500-2f-0-0-0-0-f.ipv6-literal.net. IN AAAA
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 23383
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;2001-500-2f-0-0-0-0-f.ipv6-literal.net.	IN AAAA

;; Query time: 914 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
;; WHEN: Tue Feb  5 13:34:06 2008
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 56

[monster:~]%

Joe

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:49:31 -0800

We put that feature in Vista because some applications had a very hard time parsing colons and percent signs. It really is a work around…

Dear Christian:

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Christian Huitema wrote:

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of blue
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 5:34 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: About IPv6 private address]

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

   Brian

Hi,

It translated typed "http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8]"<http://%5Bfe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258%5D> to

"http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com]/"<http://%5Bwww.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%258.com%5D/>.

Thanks.

BR,

Yi-Wen

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

suggestions?

When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::1<http://%5Bfe80::1>]/ it gives me

When I tell Firefox to connect to http://[fe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%5<http://%5Bfe80::21a:a0ff:fe4a:d680%255>]/

port 80.

   Brian

---

From: blue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:24:04 +0800

Hi,

Thanks.
BR,
Yi-Wen

---

From: "Erik Kline" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:04:40 -0800

I don't seem that same behaviour in my FF 2.0.0.11 Linux browser,
fwiw.  It seems to be trying to connect.

On 2/4/08, blue <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  It translated typed "http://[fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8]"
> to "http://[www.fe80::213:49ff:fe04:507%8.com]/".
>

---

From: bill fumerola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:06:14 -0800

> and hilarity is going to result.

beyond "not on a windows system". for those who "have to" use it because
of a scoped LLADDR, what happens when someone outside the broadcast
domain uses it? 

i agree that this idea is poorly thought out, non-standard, inconsistant,
etc. it's not entirely unoriginal.

$ host lurgee.local 
Host lurgee.local not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
$ ping -qc 1 lurgee.local 2>&1 | tail +4
1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.270/0.270/0.270/0.000 ms
$ uname -a                                                                 ~
Darwin worrywort.local 8.11.1 Darwin Kernel Version 8.11.1: Wed Oct 10 18:23:28 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.25.20~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 i386

what is worse than .local and similar is that as DRC points out .net is
an actual TLD whose authority is being oh-so-subtly being railroaded by
microsoft. that they registered the domain is nice, but it just adds to
the confusion of what exactly happens when this domain is used. do all
apps support it? just some using a particular API?

yet another ugly hack we now all have to know about and deal with.

-- bill

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:54:56 -0800

> Host lurgee.local not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

This could be regarded as a bug, but it's a tricky case.  The /usr/ 
bin/host command isn't using the system name resolver.  It's  
distributed with BIND, so it's basically doing the same thing that / 
usr/bin/dig is doing.  It makes DNS queries only.  Multicast DNS is  
derived from DNS, but it's not strictly the same as DNS, so /usr/bin/ 
host doesn't know anything about it.

> $ uname - 
> a                                                                 ~
> Darwin worrywort.local 8.11.1 Darwin Kernel Version 8.11.1: Wed Oct  
> 10 18:23:28 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.25.20~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 i386

At least, the .local domain has a long and ignoble history of not  
being usable as a global TLD in the DNS protocol.  Apple was already  
doing something weird and non-standard with it back in the Mac OS 9  
days, when the DNS protocol was young and dinosaurs yet roamed the  
Internet, so it's not like they polluted an otherwise pure water  
table by repurposing it for Multicast DNS.

Still, IETF does have a problem.  There are *two* Multicast DNS  
protocols.  There is RFC 4795 (informational) for Link-Local  
Multicast Name Resolution, which is implemented in Microsoft products  
but not much else.  And there is <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft- 
cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns>, the Multicast DNS protocol in Bonjour,  
which enjoys widespread industry adoption, in multiple  
implementations, currently shipping in a myriad of commercial  
products, but has been languishing as an under-loved individual  
submission to the DNSEXT working group since before the Great Cataclysm.

It would be very nice to have an RFC to which we could point  
questioners like the originator of this thread and say to them, "Upon  
this rock we have built our church."  Sadly, we can't.  I don't know  
what to do about that.  Absent an RFC, I think the best we can do is  
to tell such questioners, "Good luck.  Write if you get work."

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

---

From: bill fumerola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:59:10 -0800

> host doesn't know anything about it.

yep. i used both a command that uses the system's resolver library and
one that uses standard dns to parallel my question about just how
widespread microsoft's adoption of ipv6-literal.net. e.g. just where
does the 'interception' occur? i don't know how many different versions
of gethostbyname() microsoft has in their libraries. then again, i
shouldn't have to.

much like a non-existant .local nameserver can't resolve anyone's requests
of .local, ipv6-literal.net cannot resolve anyone's requests of resolution
of a lladdr. except requests are going to get further than root servers
and now microsoft has partially reinvented AS112 to deal with it. *sigh*

> table by repurposing it for Multicast DNS.

exactly. ipv6-literal.net is the worst of both worlds.

> submission to the DNSEXT working group since before the Great Cataclysm.

[ here is where i get off-topic for this WG, reply-to set. ]

there can be no argument of the widespread adoption of
cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns in implementations, applications, and
userbase. given that, are there political landminds associated with
trying to updating the draft (at minimum, it's expired) and working with
DNSEXT to pick it up as a WG item? cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd as well?

time to go read the history in the archives, i guess.

-- 
- bill fumerola / [email-masked]