Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Mark Smith <> Mon, 13 November 2017 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E209127444; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:52:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.496
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 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=0.001, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ANFBEl_zd5YA; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B793212008A; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f14so653812uaa.5; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:52:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WomaFTl1YSLdlPLZ47ilUoNxZG6TBGX/tgHYKNB/l+M=; b=aRKG084SihH9PvUdx99/770I/albuFP8NUNXVD5iDdDif0JWKbcOh95Tp1sQEHQmGC czXYYERSE6Vz2N1+Sz0UxlRa4k2m+0efpNqrk2MAjAyP/9bugjmNG/IAg6Dy/QBtcPNf FdrJOy5uFkzs/FQ36u9VRw5Z8ieYxd5/Bw0RGVtjCQApu3I75Q7XTLgmcSiVlfAlUIJu 5JNHmN51/Fy9pkiZtSlsEJiFRCLH22iUHzCqJC8F3pRlKN8H4dEiq12HJO4h1+yDan/o 7OnQDScH1nP5GuMF79AdqTsC1Pd46EaOlHWhg+fGQPGeREGMj5RutGJYlzrBg+nXcOQy qcbQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WomaFTl1YSLdlPLZ47ilUoNxZG6TBGX/tgHYKNB/l+M=; b=RuaQYUV1DPiHGEMaTpu8mg7Ia0JF8ZUhSjB+ZR8dSTaofoD9ncPaSyOlF/6c6es0Sp +1xahIzJRWXv9pMriycICk9gMMnE3sbHmLbtQpGItrPApeuvytqZGhZYJ3yl6EeInPbh 91310aCSr7IKCI6H+jOebOzm5RWPmgh4bQo8kxqLXHfLqIhwzi5/wXxAlsPoR3sWuFix Gh89PxgERFGgWV4EUJfB68Du+AvLWTLx1GRPHLdgBWQtRHRz8kiECv7hbIXwKUEUnXwO /oG0Tpj9is6gxkvO3cnDWq9QvTVRWd/TGrpFLeoZpHovPyae+TBoiI0JnqudrcNX7r5A tcrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7WbIHc4zk/appRS4UimrFQeuSlVutZii7f+T+QtvEXERTgAY8G RV9Oni0DBAQeGn/FBm13kd69DMcXj8x14YDeq+k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYppDBrEAkwIBz1GuYs6y8uV+z4pIFyGH3DKQM+6U4EqfNQ1aL2j6UbRAVobn7MJz4QvyUoSSHNE0CYLgXo05g=
X-Received: by with SMTP id w34mr7787686uac.33.1510559542695; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:52:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:52:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Mark Smith <>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 18:52:21 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <>
Cc: Erik Nordmark <>, Ole Troan <>, Fernando Gont <>, " WG" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f40304379198f45a5d055dd88c01"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:52:25 -0000

On 13 Nov. 2017 14:08, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <> wrote:

The session state management procedures out of scope of this document. This
is scope creep.

I don't think it is.

It's a fantasy that routers don't fail, or that a single router on a link
is always enough.

Host connections are supposed to survive transient failures such router
reloads or switching to a different router that provides equivalent packet
forwarding service. If a host loses its prefix in this scenario because of
either of those events, then I don't think this method as currently
described is robust against a foreseeable failure.

I don't think it is a Best current practice if router redundancy hasn't
been considered or tested and deployed, and can therefore be documented. I
see value in the approach because of SLAAC compatibility with hosts however
I think it is currently half baked.



-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:05
To: Ole Troan <>rg>; Fernando Gont <>
Cc: WG <>rg>;
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-

On 11/13/2017 10:42 AM, Ole Troan wrote:

> Or do as I do in my implementation.
> Model each host as being on it's own point to point interface.
> Configure the IPv6 prefix on that interface. That configured state is
exactly like what we have in classic SLAAC.


did you figure out how to expire those allocated prefixes when the host is
long gone from the network?

The draft seems to be silent on that issue and if the purpose is to
document some current practice it would be good to capture that.


v6ops mailing list

v6ops mailing list