IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Tue, 05 February 2019 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 3D90D1310B8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 05:21:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 mHXDqz8pB3x8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 05:21:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 442B3124BF6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 05:21:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id g16so5519505otg.11 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 05:21:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ga18w8mw4Gxp9a70GvfjEk2mGmeSwEyX8/yh2P4g9C0=; b=ZsMV2qKjavuISQ+2J14bsltWugY/Dg1zUaKeBA9/+NT82DAWze8YXMQ/4Fus0T0k8D Dy0K2YgQgIG9fLWpROZy2wemoI2lGv9dK3HmztMKyplvAc6aLhwBbqi/M41ywxeqYgQo bEF0zN8A0KpIV1huijq0b9O1pYf86JtSTaacywp9in4LSJnScsLEenJ1ZnN9qYepHiDQ bmg3jLNGnks61NWz1a9I6Jzrdvi2zWTyB9vdIWmbynLwR+j16h7WKLNKcvhsCcoeGdz7 mqOyVb8U7Y/qJ8GFzPhibuilEHnoJSdLf18G+/Mw92mjZKYuXvVjAOGA0JSwAVsBZS56 w/eA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ga18w8mw4Gxp9a70GvfjEk2mGmeSwEyX8/yh2P4g9C0=; b=nqQKvR4XZdWH9e64pPMFtVBISnhoJ8Fvh3uhQEn6Qd0XSaprL2OPSX7fR+yXcme4gW Vym2vnRjEzE4aD5enhhsfjw3yLrPXCuRsCN3T4Bi9SJ10OJtXq5+6Z4JN+QN0WFq2PqN o3nw6t8TTOybYnZPuMJRsnKyQqPEGeZ4/4QOxcDfcCrSrlLxGSjM7rKKbgfkXkScgpb1 sM6FIu3A/5inBKWg8afLgfRUkzF+OlpgQbAYpbix5YhMXXiSgVE6zvUv/RwL8++sVDBr /dDEVAp1rQH+vgkKgycu3WneEHuzvu5nfKpe9rx2d70QZDqMPdtf+fdb00iOaDkAH5pB Rv1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubo9aXd0AOzHRv0G8zrw178HM7RJMMJZRuMluaBTefzhbwkFJF+ nDtGEEsCSSjFHTFn6AShmvPIs3WWuXceMsCbBTE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbaPqmyTgE6saRw6r7ey3gJajcYfV4j9hATkf7G2vRyRHaAAoKRRPmjDrEKKLEHWr7pEiK8fHqpeftkX0uwAeY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5549:: with SMTP id h9mr2436595oti.83.1549372876566; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 05:21:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <m1gqyJC-0000FkC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2wKh-vXmv=dNmr6oEmGnw09ajrr2geYJ=H1DbSYSm=VuQ@mail.gmail.com> <m1gqzYT-0000F5C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAHL_VyDL3Abo5i=YA+4zUsaF=t5D+G-nNqM9e35Zx+VjYnJGrw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHL_VyDL3Abo5i=YA+4zUsaF=t5D+G-nNqM9e35Zx+VjYnJGrw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:21:04 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2z4FB6=ajd07=P0sWL927Btu81wthTUAwsvevvsbceeoA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eeb73d0581257bc2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3QCjIVje17eYnSWGQvi3oS14MW8>
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 13:21:19 -0000

On Tue., 5 Feb. 2019, 23:30 Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 12:10, Philip Homburg
> <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> > Ideally every customer just gets a static /48. There is no technical
> reason
> > why this can't be made to work.
>
> Not all network topologies can ensure a subscriber will always land on
> the same BNG, and I'm not super keen on redistributing millions of
> /48s all over the place.
>


Route aggregation boundary placement is not a binary choice of at the BNG
or none.



> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email