IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 03 February 2019 10:54 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 68C7C130F28; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 02:54:40 -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 81ydEQ2uhYjq; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 02:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 2C4CE126C01; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 02:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id A8CC6B2; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:54:35 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1549191275; bh=+SbTTiwTAYwV4cTjVntUIfc80eLpJtCqFLfPaHaHEcg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=2QgvTO44sXBTnri3ziTvq/4EQnycb/ETNsqEPFrkBDiYvoQCAnLyfXwRJKbFtdl8N ZMkC62mjn9dfTbGxwe/GjFIq/GN47LWivccF9WjLWCj+PRvyxCWWBanoP7P60AKq6E NIcb5LKYF7YdtxZlDsss8bzmrA5cDj3Enj7OZHS4=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6520B0; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:54:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2019 11:54:35 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
cc: ipv6@ietf.org, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
In-Reply-To: <b8f6b5d4-16be-4419-9fe7-f4ede7acc2f9@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902031153040.23912@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> <b8f6b5d4-16be-4419-9fe7-f4ede7acc2f9@si6networks.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/Nxiijix0NFjqsfkd5BTBAqF7N8M>
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 10:54:40 -0000

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Fernando Gont wrote:

>> OpenWrt since 15.05 has been very much aimed to be RFC7084 compatible so
>> I would propose to investigate further what hosts today actually do in
>> reaction to RFC7084 signalling.
>
> What do you mean by "RFC7084 signaling"?

Sending RAs with PIOs with zero lifetime.

>From my testing so far they do the right thing and stop using addresses 
from within those PIOs including if they're IA_NAs with a week lifetime, 
but I think it might be good if someone investigated current situation.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email