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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Thu, 14 February 2019 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1948fd41cf=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 54235131160 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 03:11:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es
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 656Xu59Yxcm5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 03:11:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0221A131060 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 03:11:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1550142683; x=1550747483; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References: In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; bh=0YqVgN6PyCSdJTGl+5r4x2UYaQTXnRFBQcs54aJoK+c=; b=X9+UPKdYsDDhg e+erjkY2gMZeSsafh8cWhMR9XqO+DdB9Y1458gw4wIpwBLmQY0XoIl7lpUK39dCs HQj3ODenLjvVhDn4SAqzgg5lhida5C2rMQWzunqS1qRZng2DpBjlMj5dUSwNudw1 GX1RQDQ3Z/jj0WrABTGQ7CJPfwy/a0=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:11:23 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:11:22 +0100
Received: from [10.10.10.139] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50006154673.msg for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:11:22 +0100
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:2cd1:4c11:8272:8b78
X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.139]
X-MDArrival-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:11:22 +0100
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Return-Path: prvs=1948fd41cf=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ipv6@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.7.190210
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:11:21 +0100
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
CC: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <792DEB91-28C5-462F-AFD4-D5A6877A182D@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <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> <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>
In-Reply-To: <97249859-2a3d-75f7-6bb8-6b9563c99d08@foobar.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3C2mscQRKCQIITsJE4sTsI4uYIs>
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 11:11:28 -0000

I'm not saying that.

I was responding to "this approach doesn't scale ....".

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Fecha: jueves, 14 de febrero de 2019, 12:07
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
CC: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

    JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote on 14/02/2019 10:21:
    > Why not? This is already happening in IPv4. I've got from a major
    > operator in Spain (and other operators in other countries do the
    > same), the same IPv4 address for decades! I'm talking about
    > residential services, with both DSL and GPON. Not to mention business
    > services were you actually pay for that static address a monthly
    > fee.
    
    The ietf isn't going to get operator buy-in for mandating static v6 
    prefix assignments.
    
    Nick
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.