Re: there should be a ULA prefix?? [was: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios]

Erik Kline <ek@loon.co> Tue, 26 February 2019 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 9C3501200D8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:46:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=loon.co
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 lvQEXVno9PDg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:46:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (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 F36A5128AFB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id y6so11476020ioq.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:46:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=loon.co; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=3yNeSNgCYLYCxLe+etAtfD2rIQqF0JQGhmEPVVYQ4kE=; b=fymDMp7uPHoDLtugwWy8CFBXsyE/tdKCqAUpvWuUBnOgns7Qam015qO/1k2MetV1Zv /FotAeh/iRuhkLtYx6ZjgAnPqankBtXtRMkRzOps/swkaG4cNA8OcWTJnk8gt4Qu5asz cbIF/l+HhOBCCEqIlwCRlPfy73D/2gG10uoUQ=
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3yNeSNgCYLYCxLe+etAtfD2rIQqF0JQGhmEPVVYQ4kE=; b=aBTdE8nk1XiKH/yGy62S0tRr/8xrBNrqEkbhT3/DbRH446D/1GCNnmAxTvGD9hUVUg EBl+SmOITz/sCPMzFNeDsYp9Bk/w0B86dfR6wx5Ez6Crj6juyq0fD/filTNladcCnV0e 9Ggu0oqt8qotkp0+N37EOZyVBgTUn2mPqTJExrzZeoF7anMKqM0juyue0zzey9P+jjgO +MxcU8HEV8YHROFpXUX+E0d5RXSBUIBZ/mCgz4SCyduZSE4SP/z22zSSIWdP0pjPVblE vzK5Du1OG1hF1a72MPIUECpTnx/eqgXZCzcQI/CGBM+jK7oGP3umOVZZWeBJomkLW5hf OtPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZaOWGA9z4CIFRqYKiGrJDiyrWdGVjLXLmz43vgksURfvTzqMRn BqVct2CeNZGNjGaaW35ImQrA6Zx2+EAiWI8GujttYQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbklMTIMpsH30XW9ls9VpJ9AtlIxYM4aYEW8g6YIjEYqjs7y/XW7M5jgylnb84waIGS2YrZ1l4mrzZcuQZORIg=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:824e:: with SMTP id n14mr13286632ioo.16.1551210366870; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:46:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr0HBG+rhyFWg9zh0t3mW486Mjx9umjn+CRqAZg4z9r0dg@mail.gmail.com> <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com> <a73818d31db7422b99a524bc431b00ed@boeing.com> <CAO42Z2z9-48Gbb_Exf+oWUqDO=axSLpZBtqeDcxkAoFq5OziGw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S3624hnGauG1HaSWPMvQw0t2Q5R3gb8W4R8w3kuK7dcrWQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F07F2BB-2F37-4D12-9731-7892DF4E3D88@consulintel.es> <0a582916-af14-bd82-a4cd-002a36f8830b@huitema.net> <67515a73-26a5-3ed0-da88-1a4ce64550d3@foobar.org> <360afa02-cf23-375c-4876-780d3c2aa5ac@gont.com.ar> <CAHL_VyD34V=TRcsCp0DOO9HJNHyy5xkiMQ_cZoBa7zTE4fe5OA@mail.gmail.com> <ead01e0a-9211-7944-88d6-ae8d037c03a8@si6networks.com> <FB8B77EE-CC16-4418-BB5E-D44EE66D6B72@jisc.ac.uk> <899A1249-D3D9-4824-8B2E-7E950FBB316A@jisc.ac.uk> <m1gya2p-0000HVC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9b7ba4df-41df-2c03-ddca-e15289075bff@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9b7ba4df-41df-2c03-ddca-e15289075bff@gmail.com>
Reply-To: ek@loon.co
From: Erik Kline <ek@loon.co>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:45:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAedzxrY6faikYKUMKAwt-yc33Vag1aERcYy2vsdDUzrniUJNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: there should be a ULA prefix?? [was: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3fee70582d14e53"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5PdFaGY7w8u6ulmoqwhWNvDzSG8>
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 19:46:11 -0000

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 11:36, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Philip,
>
> On 26-Feb-19 23:33, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >> So given that document is 12 years old, with that default copied from
> one that
> >> is 21 years old, is an update required?
> >>
> >> And if so, to what?
> >
> > I think this should be updated.
> >
> > A long time ago, the model was that you would get a prefix from your ISP
> > and that was the only global prefix on the local network.
> >
> > So with short lifetimes, if the internet connection would go down for a
> > relatively long period, there would be no global prefix anymore and hosts
> > would have to resort to link local to communicate (which obviously fails
> > if there are multiple subnets).
> >
> > Some time in the past, the thinking changed and now there should be a ULA
> > prefix in addition to any global prefixes.
>
> Really? Where do you think that is stated?
>
> I happen to run my CPE with ULA enabled, but I'm not aware of any
> recommendation to do so.
>

It's not published yet, but it's mentioned under "Benefits of Using ULAs in
this scenario" in:


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations-02#section-4.2

> So I think that with a ULA, it makes more sense for a CPE to limit
> lifetimes
> > to some multiple of the RA interval.
>
> Why? I don't expect my ULA prefix to change ever. Or do you mean the
> lifetimes
> for globally routeable prefixes?
>
>    Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>