IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 05 February 2019 12:10 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 1E825126DBF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 04:10:25 -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 w_AkHhc0ZFle for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 04:10:22 -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 66CE3126C01 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 04:10:22 -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 m1gqzYT-0000F5C; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:10:21 +0100
Message-Id: <m1gqzYT-0000F5C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 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: <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> <m1gptWx-0000G3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <69609C58-7205-4519-B17A-4FBC8AE2EA16@employees.org> <d40b41c3-ff1b-cab4-a8de-16692a78e8fd@go6.si> <D1E45CAD-08D0-43D4-90F7-C4DD44CB32C0@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902041330531.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se> <77ecf321-b46e-4f25-7f68-05b15714a99e@si6networks.com> <CAHL_VyDdHuEAc9UdeiRp9f+c0tdzyoLwPY1rJbZmbWAuq96Uuw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902051127510.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1gqyJC-0000FkC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2wKh-vXmv=dNmr6oEmGnw09ajrr2geYJ=H1DbSYSm=VuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 5 Feb 2019 23:01:12 +1100 ." <CAO42Z2wKh-vXmv=dNmr6oEmGnw09ajrr2geYJ=H1DbSYSm=VuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:10:21 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LlPYs-ZHarFdFHqbZjIKP_q1kzc>
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, 05 Feb 2019 12:10:25 -0000

> The problem starts when the ISP wants to change prefixes.
>
>How often will they really need to do that?
>
>I think a lot of this need in IPv4 has come from IPv4 addresses being
>precious and expensive resources. Consequently, it has been worth the
>expense and effort of fine grained management of them.
>
>In IPv6, that level of management isn't needed. Addresses are plentiful and
>cheap, so you can throw lots of address space at problems.

Ideally every customer just gets a static /48. There is no technical reason
why this can't be made to work.

Reality is that ISPs have lots of reasons to do things differently. I don't
think we are in position to tell ISPs that they are doing it wrong. Reality
is also that in lots of markets there is little competition. So if an ISP
does something weird, customers are stuck with it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email