IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 20 February 2019 09:41 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 1CC9112E036 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:41:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 8Wp9hoYoOZQR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x336.google.com (mail-ot1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) (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 A4B38124B0C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x336.google.com with SMTP id n8so39112001otl.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:41:49 -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=+wpwcH9TA9RaRKEhlZg+FuIa4e27y1KFnZv2lIaZRws=; b=KBNPF+TC0cbKKKzY3rtoaGS+QLh9iP5Co4NyKERnYB+TuRbAHnob1GA1U9+I44+A1F HkTRnnpBOQPf0xZPkz3uzEQ+k3sNlLWY+LJ1q+GlQ9YcyE8d7va2UvYaM1rH3KLRkFYh 55TLtUqa6zU/K4M39iRZ9MpmDX3/ndSEw59APIwBYNgpVUgqXWJ6OoqQIuH6fAikkKXa clbXjx6uKW45K/uLiC+NA0Te48zAEkBAtls2HJijsMzDX2y6RqZFF2AkBP8HrLKTlnhn aQqaPFbT6bssK29ahp63IzUwXi49PtdAa7B42AZHnmSCh+TRMx1721k74tFSVid7dntJ eEtA==
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=+wpwcH9TA9RaRKEhlZg+FuIa4e27y1KFnZv2lIaZRws=; b=ni3dgZkF3mabOEx2XX1nhnLJi3AriP9FGtnX+pnbX+lukTCGVtsHbuJqQZoqcabHnu uSATwhawYE3hI0j7f/ek5X+JuNCrmmT4WpsEX+PqwxoElTnRQjOtCZzrpK3STbWzCrPp I96XkP1NOttSFEqbPJaPHit95ftc5tAhyFxLt+7Nc90L69hjv8I7aSmNbDljIU2PX0E6 xZS8ywDWcahP7Js8BUGAd0cQ+Gu0we9DVPs6r79+7JzhCK7HUiKtjgtHghsZebFtzXjN 4ciE8i+8qImElJHTDm1ZJpyqDWIuLb9wlBQUTxrUSJAaSptDI4QiahokXwIIJCLLDjfj Ti1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZP/uPlnSCaUKC9tBC1fNERQh3VGQrXiwK6U5w3QG3zQ8FlXVHJ nj4dQAzczpTvWI0Hr+KKNf1MWfhxJEqnemSXuNg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaJc2Wi5zwBKqZFZoVfzK0fdvuG3xkBQ90STFgNJ7mkOsIq630Q/h4KtlaI8TPCCGA39UR7MP96ORhVItTnaCs=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6090:: with SMTP id m16mr6587230otj.285.1550655708785; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:41:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <CAFU7BAS1_veTu-ZXAF0MF4niJwz149nGipx3ep_6fh1bewOzgg@mail.gmail.com> <d9503983-6524-a13a-2cb0-cdcb95f76ea6@si6networks.com> <CAFU7BAQfg712UfgW9wi9pd3eVeZP9cqJEXd6=FDmchuSdauv+g@mail.gmail.com> <66687354-5ee1-80f7-2a32-78631530dfb3@go6.si> <CAFU7BASbotMqVSRH3P0p2sn8mAX+gL8==tBdNYoR_75XUE918w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASbotMqVSRH3P0p2sn8mAX+gL8==tBdNYoR_75XUE918w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:41:22 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2wr=FSt9Xex2+FWSRPQ=0UwrAn5Pi=pWrxwYZKiGCxkxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3zJxb1ElKu7GlgYz_AWqzmKv6Js>
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:41:51 -0000

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 20:16, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> wrote:
> > In theory you are correct.
> >
> > In practice - at residential home or SOHO environment we rarely see a
> > corner case that you described. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I
> > would say - very very rare.
>
> Sorry if I did not make it clear - what I'm trying to say is that the
> proposed changes seem to affect not just residential home or SOHO
> environment but all hosts in all environments.
> So it would be nice to think about other scenarios and potential impact.
>

+1

I always think we should think about solutions that will work in a 2
or more router scenario, because that would usually guarantee they'd
then work in a single router scenario. The other way around not so
much, because people may not think about issues related to
synchronising state and other issues between the two or more routers,
because they aren't required to.

Redundancy both in routers/CPE and links (e.g. FTTH + 4G) is
constantly getting cheaper, commodity and possibly therefore more
common. (Redundancy has got so cheap that even our commonly used hosts
have redundant links i.e. multihomed smartphones.)

<snip>

Regards,
Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email