IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 5AD6B1271FF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:07:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OhuB8XnkN5YC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 34CC8126C7E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x1DG7M9Z022441; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:07:22 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 191A1205995; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:07:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114B1205593; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:07:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x1DG7LTE015510; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:07:22 +0100
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
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> <77ecf321-b46e-4f25-7f68-05b15714a99e@si6networks.com> <CAHL_VyDdHuEAc9UdeiRp9f+c0tdzyoLwPY1rJbZmbWAuq96Uuw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902051127510.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se> <7a401098-ef51-86d4-064b-056e061a4472@gmail.com> <CAHL_VyDACS172yQoSiz7s+FvrQWchesGXNx73FkA2T057q0YPQ@mail.gmail.com> <1dda35a9-2dfd-3fad-7a32-47ac0753a6bf@gmail.com> <CAHL_VyCYqotiZArQgYiROyLMs0W7vNzESPEvhDr5VStoA30W0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7328944b-d541-13ef-93f2-e7b25ffb44fb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:07:21 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHL_VyCYqotiZArQgYiROyLMs0W7vNzESPEvhDr5VStoA30W0g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1D-TFhrI2_N6V8I40QG6YOFPtcM>
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:07:28 -0000


Le 13/02/2019 à 16:57, Richard Patterson a écrit :
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 15:44, Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Storing the old lease to persistent storage also gives the CPE
>>> visibility if the prefix does change.  If it does, it can then send
>>> RAs with lifetime 0 to deprecate the old prefix on the LAN side.
>>
>> Which lifetime?  Prefix Information Option's (PIO's) Valid Lifetime or
>> Preferred Lifetime?
>>
>> I doubt this deprecation work straightforwardly on stacks of user's
>> laptops (Windows) on LAN side, unless one tries, of course.
>>
>> I am saying it because recently confronted with linux absence of visible
>> lifetime fields in Neighbor Cache, otherwise urgently needed for other
>> contexts.
>>
> 
> The preferred lifetime of the old prefix in a PIO.
> I'm not aware of issues using this method to deprecate an address on
> any of the common host implementations.

not sure I can see two lifetimes (Valid, Preferred) of routes in routing 
table in host implementation linux with ip -6 r command.  Despite that, 
deprecation of addresses as you suggest may indeed work.

Alex

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email