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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Fri, 15 February 2019 12:15 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 B0182128AFB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 04:15:31 -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 wgbljUa_cR0c for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 04:15:30 -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 797EB130DC9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 04:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F5B66077 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:28 +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 54M4-xibLEyJ for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:27 +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 D597865E65 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:27 +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 AFA2A807BC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:27 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1550232927; bh=K95gDYO09qbQ5VsVF7Kko2ONd21vYQ+u47zbhlhSOlQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XNJatXa3iDzVBEy4EJxSmjE/1SxjsSYpQljfw6tTyKJDzBtixb2K9yilYXOt0dmpW bReh+GEagfFXidyrCTZZrrs42cAbr4j7MhQ9bKE9JB7STCIseSFylFCSebMy/KiGKV lit5z9yENYUoXYGaKjVLmxQOL/wk9B0AXnttfXQc=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <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> <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com> <65DB4854-97D2-4C31-A691-2CD93812EF93@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCMpCcGkEQu+RV1GRf2QLB-HD0+AOOBV0YhfQ5sbydVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CE7A0CD-97D9-46A0-814D-CAF8788F9964@consulintel.es> <e3e0bf2273e04f15b792665d0f66dfe5@boeing.com> <4c5fab33-2bff-e5b5-fc1d-8f60a01a146d@go6.si> <b4525832-9151-20bf-7136-31d87ba6c88d@huitema.net> <463f 15cf-2754-e2e8-609d-dc0f33448c6c@go6.si> <444A9043-0EDF-4F21-9DCE-BF019B81D078@huitema.net> <a03 6a6a4-26c7-66df-9094-7af67e424711@gmail.com> <9BA9D825-2B75-47FA-999E-2712E151AD01@huitema.net> <1b1a78b8-ccba-2085-0fb0-0c957e782146@moth.iki.fi>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <7bab7a8a-1136-9b53-56b1-6401e62947d5@go6.si>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:15:27 +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: <1b1a78b8-ccba-2085-0fb0-0c957e782146@moth.iki.fi>
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/ipv6/3tq_F4M_lPOo-Rax7w9iO7_I1rs>
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: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:15:32 -0000

On 15/02/2019 11:55, Markku Savela wrote:
> On 15/02/2019 12:30, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 
>> Right now we have the bizarre property of having better privacy in
>> a coffee shop than at home. That doesn't seem right.
> 
> On the other hand, I prefer to have have reasonably stable global 
> routable IP4/6 addresses at home. Makes peer-to-peer applications
> easier to setup, if your address does not change every minute or
> hour, or whatever.
> 
> However, I'm also very much for privacy. If there is possibility to 
> change address, the change trigger control should be on the user, not
> on operator...

Bingo!

Cheers, Jan