Re: graceful renumbering of CPE networks

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 26 February 2019 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 CB629130DE7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 05:26:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 RLhUYB-OBunN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 05:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 3A3311200B3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 05:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id D3847B2; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:26:24 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1551187584; bh=eNTZwaizBmf0ciBk6VPfn83sIpbeWTR7q7cPEwUDyMs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=aqWf9bQl+U3qjM9ZZr1oBKL9Pypf7dt907Zq3vGCKBR/zCm8TiwtKYI0gf3QnshLs up5psWkORHCdsrjNjZPzz4DLK3Ff4Z2F0Tj0VrlaX+sFYiW6hKfES6GYOUMVyKKf6z 0GuyHkiCxlvZL7zn2w0eXFN4PbiuisQx86N9Bn84=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D121DB0; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:26:24 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:26:24 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: graceful renumbering of CPE networks
In-Reply-To: <90DA6A7F-783B-4548-861F-21DACF780D81@employees.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902261422330.24327@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <463f15cf-2754-e2e8-609d-dc0f33448c6c@go6.si> <ff649810-7242-7bc2-d36f-3f998f7bdd71@asgard.org> <9CDF41CA-83B4-4FC4-B995-EF79727C5458@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2wA+vLmU7+sU6xLK7TO6pWfNQA5shs9zp=PqANCihLmBQ@mail.gmail.com> <BAB3061A-1808-4C0E-AA1B-2D7DD5BA63FC@employees.org> <bbd8b761-403a-5b3f-3f04-dc3bfdea116e@foobar.org> <6F3036C6-50A1-43C6-B554-31293B69E59D@employees.org> <433607c1-dbc6-a42e-cb17-dc209e33bdaa@si6networks.com> <12EA4FAE-BE3D-4CFE-9837-DF052F79A998@employees.org> <F48A816A-983E-4375-834C-75F103DCEA6A@employees.org> <8c8a79cf-0a87-15bc-bd91-bd2da82fdfa1@si6networks.com> <9BE77D1D-C247-4B8E-B9A F-22BE1DC9F79D@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr1fv3pUevB_zeZpQ-UQcNUo2zHUH4xj9NXYohyMbUSgRQ@mail.gmail.com> <25657.1550676340@localhost> <716de09a-2436-f0c7-c607-bdfef35880b1@gmail.com> <7014.1551050774@localhost> <90DA6A7F-783B-4548-861F-21DACF780D81@employees.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3TGDAYCRqqT8--Oa160i6pNrXHg>
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, 26 Feb 2019 13:26:30 -0000

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, Ole Troan wrote:

>
>
>> On 25 Feb 2019, at 00:26, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The part that is missing is some kind of "push" notification from the ISP to
>> the CPE that new addresses are available.  That need not obsolete the
>> old addresses --- the lifetime contract can be maintained.
>
> DHCP Reconfigure.

In the most common deployment scenario there is:

HGW <-> ISP-ROUTER <-> something <-> DHCPv6-server

Normal message flow is

HGW->ISP-ROUTER->DHCPv6-server which then answers back with 
DHCPv6-SERVER->ISP-router->HGW

In both ways the ISP-ROUTER is a DHCPv6 relay which does snooping on the 
relayed packets and installs routes as per the IA_NA/PD information flying 
by.

What mechanism in this deployment scenario would initiate a DHCP 
Reconfigure when the ISP-ROUTER is re-booted? I know there is some kind of 
"ok, I've lost state, please fill me in" kind of question that the relay 
can ask the server, but should we then tack on that when this happens (and 
it should then happen by default at start-up) a dhcp reconfigure message 
should be sent to the client?

What if both DHCP server and relay has lost state, can it even tell the 
HGW to refresh?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se