IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 03 February 2019 07:51 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 92E48130F1F; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 23:51:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 V4yKYZ3e6C4E; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 23:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 CB664130EF5; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 23:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9C42BB2; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 08:51:49 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1549180309; bh=ywJyKCAyK1EqAYOPci5n4hJ3YCnSmuwsdww6nq+x2wQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=oEr/220v68g3gnixLbJjPKGQK6kF/qd23/0OptYkOvp037NpLy8RJgk7kctqkUZBJ OFRsrXuJsUyVENkeknaMM7nhujn3KofAVaTZ4Dsu65LhtdxVrzBtWjDrAf3NaLrNJV Gl6MsmakogiDIMv4lq2s4F2A3ew2w4VZl/uO40W8=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965DEB0; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 08:51:49 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2019 08:51:49 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
In-Reply-To: <5AEA3935-F25D-4F5E-BB7A-88693DB5362F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902030849470.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901311236320.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1gpCcz-0000FlC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <ddd28787-8905-bafd-3546-2ceef436c8b0@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902011942460.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5AEA3935-F25D-4F5E-BB7A-88693DB5362F@gmail.com>
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/ECnNKZ4MCtO7PJ__MyBtB4KG380>
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: Sun, 03 Feb 2019 07:51:56 -0000

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Fred Baker wrote:

> It sounds to me like you needed manual intervention to fix things. Mere 
> mortals need for it to sect that it was down and do the right thing, 
> then detect that it was restored and address that...

If I had support for 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-05 then no 
manual intervention would have been needed.

Problem I have with my setup is that my WAN physical port doesn't go down 
just because the upstream router goes unreachable.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email