IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Mon, 11 February 2019 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jan@go6.si>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F09813117B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:10:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=go6.si
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 hd7Rv2aaEkC2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.go6lab.si (mx.go6lab.si [91.239.96.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD001288BD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A426602B; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:10:45 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at go6.si
Received: from mx.go6lab.si ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2JnyD9w2F9TW; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:10:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.go6.si (mail.go6.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.go6.si", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (not verified)) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C2FB6601A; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:10:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ISOC-BMDKQ4.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:102:182a:e622:682:93c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Jan Zorz", Issuer "COMODO RSA Client Authentication and Secure Email CA" (not verified)) (Authenticated sender: jan) by mail.go6.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5153805CB; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:10:43 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549915843; bh=buXc+OSspPB9OxqgaKFDD2clIcvt/78riWWfBqrglCE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=hq3TtQYdaIk8N4SD68O8fcmVTFs6aSlYxDTfmjqkpk7UiPWlsy8Swdmm3ZnOC7lzX kGSWnofS35sUYGc+g2VlehYWUAwyVndDuTmKoEbt1saC9Y4jv+OQzGd7K1fd4+RNEC J/8ZpGQtXlAp2WvlldNYueB91+i7dyR0K9/Fs5Yo=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901311236320.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1gpCcz-0000FlC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <ddd28787-8905-bafd-3546-2ceef436c8b0@si6networks.com> <m1gptWx-0000G3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <69609C58-7205-4519-B17A-4FBC8AE2EA16@employees.org> <d40b41c3-ff1b-cab4-a8de-16692a78e8fd@go6.si> <D1E45CAD-08D0-43D4-90F7-C4DD44CB32C0@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902041330531.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se> <46B8DB92-DC81-4242-9780-0D00FB6BDB7A@employees.org> <1c7ebabb-d6f6-d877-d4aa-d6c0fc7d5c60@go6.si> <6278.1549471453@dooku.sandelman.ca> <CAO42Z2xdKtLJV11KXELBKca6CWn=B6Avz6bO_94kFFXaKiZ-pQ@mail.gmail.com> <4602.1549908472@localhost>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <98c492c1-1cd8-eb26-13fb-9c102768a919@go6.si>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:10:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4602.1549908472@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/10GswjfK7lnE-MUP19X0_snOkGk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:10:53 -0000

On 11/02/2019 19:07, Michael Richardson wrote:
>      > For troubleshooting, customers' can plug a PC directly into the
>      > service to test it, isolating the CPE as a fault cause. This is a
>      > little bit more important in BYO CPE markets than it would be in ISP
>      > provided/managed CPE.
> 
> This is a big one plus in my opinion.

Indeed... and also numbering a single-host access with IPv6 if that is 
the case.

> 
>      > The decision on for the production residential IPv6 broadband
>      > deployment I worked on back in 2010 was to do dynamic GUA /64s on the
>      > PPPoE session/link, and a static/stable PD prefix provided via RADIUS.
>      > So outside the BNG, there was only 1 PD route per customer.
> 
> Is there a document a RIPE or Broadband forum or ??? that details this decision?

Not (yet). We touched this in principle in RIPE-690, but nothing 
detailed. I think we should do that.

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email