Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] What to do when we lose DHCPv4 election?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 17 August 2015 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF011ACDA2; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PUgv3sTvNqFH; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30C391ACD95; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D5D200A3; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:03:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 58C4D63B10; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399BB63AEC; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
In-Reply-To: <87k2stvrfa.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
References: <87pp2oioik.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <26135.1439773503@sandelman.ca> <87k2suw6w2.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <25711.1439826616@sandelman.ca> <87k2stvrfa.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:45:44 -0400
Message-ID: <17393.1439833544@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/N6Woc9oWz8ogz0AoqUnNSJScIjg>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Homenet <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [homenet] What to do when we lose DHCPv4 election?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:45:46 -0000

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
    >> 1) if the v4 prefix on the link is renumbered because a different router
    >> won the election, then the existing router may still have connectivity,
    >> and may still be willing to route packets.

    > The old prefix is no longer announced over the routing protocol, so the
    > old addresses are unreachable now.  (Or are you suggesting that we

That's not entirely true.  Nodes on the same link (such as 99% of current
home setups) don't need the routing protocol to reach things.

My point here is not to break how IPv4 works in a typical setup.
(You may argue the word "works" above...)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-