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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Tue, 05 February 2019 10:49 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 7E7E213108B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 02:49:30 -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 jZWLbZE-CtYr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 02:49:29 -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 504EA130FCA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 02:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBB065FB6; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:49:27 +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 p1SdLzd0Qf5W; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:49:26 +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 B17C6603E3; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:49:26 +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 6C777805CB; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:49:26 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549363766; bh=2iVcbOtsNphcWeWsJdQivz3I2tXB4DU9j1S1SxjUPFU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=btEqmFyj7IIuV+/JQGvtIa4Ao0LIXbRcXdL+i2ktJnBzHdVEV19TD4mRALDHIUg61 IyNnABCRg9RJgfvDvbEWa0TbOaIfsqZrwsG391zyK4+OM3Rk8vhPH0Q5kF2CtR/2XM aQaJpLk2IlRJM2DE/7iO6g7A6SOv2SGKjqd0iJSQ=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901311236320.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se> <35adea8e-704a-76f2-857f-a83a9ad689ef@si6networks.com> <c40020c9-b9ef-adef-144d-5e077bf6d1e3@go6.si> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DFB7B00@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <01685656-1473-f613-be6a-9f9888fe5fff@go6.si>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 11:49:25 +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: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DFB7B00@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
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/ipv6/3GGqFjyY6QkbaUEtqSbMRhcl6KI>
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: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 10:49:31 -0000

Hi,

On 04/02/2019 16:41, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>>  Trying to standardize something that is outside IETF's control is unrealistic.

Interesting sentence. Very interesting one. Makes me think about what's 
inside and what's outside IETF's control.

I think it's an important thought to think about and the answer to that 
basically answers what we actually *CAN* do.

Cheers, Jan