IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Thu, 14 February 2019 19:24 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 89BEB12EB11 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:24:02 -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, 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 Mx64H2Q8GoiE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.go6lab.si (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::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 2E21912426A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E9C660C4; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:23:56 +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 ZkSWTf3kWQpI; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:23:55 +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 D2A7F65E78; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:23:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from haktar.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:102:610e:8078:3a49:d609]) (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 A279C8054D; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:23:54 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1550172234; bh=1JVtoYeTuLII/E5UExnAUuZE50xRKsDGRaAHIy3OsSI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=E5fYmmYnsuCA3UpSrhpoyF00KOeHZOjgSrqZbStANar1pp3e80jsG7+Q040cq04IA mW/Bzma1r0mYwUmEMsixEEVegoDF9TcLeDt7Wu5pHR5wNKGOPWUFQOkIOP9429Z+wo 6+v4ngHS9EKyfHXwbyyqHsPN3M14Iv2j7eBL4vBQ=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <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> <CAO42Z2w1swQNuwnrOyTCEMXt0NSyrBx7Ww3kUN-7dfEV=fvk3A@mail.gmail.com> <c16e0e1f-1ed2-ad88-80f1-070bdd8bccca@go6.si> <1F2C2AEE-1C7D-481C-BBA7-7E507312C53A@employees.org> <e56a6e5b-648d-200e-c35d-97f15a31fb2a@asgard.org> <CAO42Z2zh7fKAgQJq9aLCTiFoSSsTeGM=pK3gXitg+gcxH=9fhQ@mail.gmail.com> <d38857c2-6e92-91d6-bb5d-d3eeeb61276a@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yb47OyXk__Sz-kO00pfcBJgLAhff5DF=mpAddR0iCnAA@mail.gmail.com> <2612280f-195a-ae7a-b3b1-9022d9282fa7@foobar.org> <56F813F4-C512-40A9-8A68-1090C76A80F6@consulintel.es> <97249859-2a3d-75f7-6bb8-6b9563c99d08@foobar.org> <eb64fe1b-132d-b2f5-3511-4dcb557fc94a@go6.si> <82c2af36-35e0-cb77-c3d6-d60ea76e0888@foobar.org>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <b2e64b50-c723-9e60-585e-62bf3b558027@go6.si>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:23:53 +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: <82c2af36-35e0-cb77-c3d6-d60ea76e0888@foobar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/217FdAMaZnUQQX2UKS6-39Pxngg>
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:24:02 -0000

On 14/02/2019 13:10, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote on 14/02/2019 11:55:
>> So, at the end of a day, it may be in operators interest that we 
>> somehow fix the whole spaghetti chain between ISP and customer and 
>> give the advice how to make all 3 points in the network more robust 
>> and better cooperating between each other when it comes to IPv6...
> 
> Pretty much.  The IETF can't demand that service providers change their 
> design models.  What we can do, however, is to document known failures 
> modes for common design choices and work with the various stakeholders 
> to try to get these addressed.

Agreed ;)

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email