IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 26 February 2019 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 67B5D1279E6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:23:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wSDidBkPFIS7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (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 2CDA8126D00 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1gym4P-0000JbC; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:23:29 +0100
Message-Id: <m1gym4P-0000JbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: there should be a ULA prefix?? [was: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios]
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
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> <29dcc6ed-03f6-3ead-6866-eecbefdf 1483@si6networks.com> <899A1249-D3D9-4824-8B2E-7E950FBB316A@jisc.ac.uk> <m1gya2p-0000HVC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9b7 ba4df-41df-2c03-ddca-e15289075bff@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:35:48 +1300 ." <9b7ba4df-41df-2c03-ddca-e15289075bff@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:23:28 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HiVAmCUkGbmpWVBXiNfW6zC9O7A>
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 23:23:32 -0000

>Really? Where do you think that is stated?

As Mark said, RFC-7084.

>> 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?

In the case of bridged VMs, prefixes can stick around for a long time.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email