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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 19 February 2019 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 A3D4D130EEF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 05:42:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 pqRAVboccN72 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 05:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 D2BBC130EEB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 05:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x1JDg9oE011615 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:42:09 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 46BAB20331A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:42:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1FE203315 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:42:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x1JDg9lI029490 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:42:09 +0100
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <d38857c2-6e92-91d6-bb5d-d3eeeb61276a@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yb47OyXk__Sz-kO00pfcBJgLAhff5DF=mpAddR0iCnAA@mail.gmail.com> <2612280f-195a-ae7a-b3b1-9022d9282fa7@foobar.org> <56F813F4-C512-40A9-8A68-1090C76A80F6@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com> <65DB4854-97D2-4C31-A691-2CD93812EF93@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCMpCcGkEQu+RV1GRf2QLB-HD0+AOOBV0YhfQ5sbydVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CE7A0CD-97D9-46A0-814D-CAF8788F9964@consulintel.es> <e3e0bf2273e04f15b792665d0f66dfe5@boeing.com> <4c5fab33-2bff-e5b5-fc1d-8f60a01a146d@go6.si> <b4525832-9151-20bf-7136-31d87ba6c88d@huitema.net> <463f15cf-2754-e2e8-609d-dc0f33448c6c@go6.si> <ff649810-7242-7bc2-d36f-3f998f7bdd71@asgard.org> <9CDF41CA-83B4-4FC4-B995-EF79727C5458@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2wA+vLmU7+sU6xLK7TO6pWfNQA5shs9zp=PqANCihLmBQ@mail.gmail.com> <BAB3061A-1808-4C0E-AA1B-2D7DD5BA63FC@employees.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cc69261a-d054-4233-b9c4-cc2446699227@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:42:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BAB3061A-1808-4C0E-AA1B-2D7DD5BA63FC@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RUlk46QnWonw_cFyWesX1fMNPAY>
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, 19 Feb 2019 13:42:15 -0000


Le 19/02/2019 à 13:22, Ole Troan a écrit :
>>>> Seems to me several operators have offered their opinions
>>>> here. If you want more opinions, maybe ask a group of
>>>> operators?
>>> 
>>> Not a very helpful comment... I think the underlying problem
>>> here is that there is no technical solution available that
>>> solves stable IPv6 address delegation at residential scale in an 
>>> acceptable way.
>>> 
>>> - For stable address delegation the routing inside the ISP 
>>> becomes a mess, especially when it can't be guaranteed that a 
>>> customer consistently ends up at the same BNG. - To keep ISP 
>>> networks scalable, prefixes are aggregated to (roughly) BNG 
>>> level, making it impossible to keep prefix delegation stable at 
>>> the customer's end
>>> 
>> 
>> It's not a hard requirement to aggregate prefixes at the individual
>> BNG level, and most ISPs should be running BGP to carry customer
>> routes. Obviously BGP to scale to 100s of 1000s of routes because
>> the Internet runs with it.
>> 
>> The minimum PD stability needed for fixed access customers (e.g. 
>> ADSL, FTTH etc.) is within the pool of BNGs they can attach to upon
>> reconnection. So if you need or want to aggregate those routes, you
>> place the BGP route aggregation boundary at the boundary of your
>> BNG pool, rather than at the individual BNG. You then say to your
>> customers that if they physically move their service by e.g. moving
>> house, they may not receive the same stable PD prefix again,
>> because you're not guaranteeing they will reconnect to the same BNG
>> pool.
>> 
>> It would however be nice to try to provide the customer with a 
>> stable prefix on a greater scale than just within the same BNG 
>> pool, so you could pick greater geographic boundaries for your 
>> aggregation points, rather than at the boundary of an individual 
>> BNG pool. For example, here in Australia, I'd try to aim for that 
>> boundary to be at each of the 7 capital city boundaries, even 
>> though I may have multiple PoPs within a city, with each PoP 
>> containing a number of BNGs in a pool (and possibly multiple BNG 
>> pools within a PoP). Smaller aggregation domains e.g. dividing 
>> cities into 4 regions might be necessary depending on numbers of 
>> subscribers.
>> 
>> You can still provide a guaranteed static and persistent PD prefix 
>> to customers that want to pay for it, which means that prefix
>> isn't ever aggregated and can follow them regardless of where they 
>> geographically because you never aggregate that prefix. They're 
>> paying for and getting more value because they're getting a 
>> guarantee.
> 
> Indeed. Wonder how these pesky mobile phone operators manage to 
> deliver the same telephone number to a user, for years.

It's called 'RIO' in France (Relevé d'Identité Opérateur).

That RIO contains some identifiers and the phone number.

This RIO could probably contain the IPv6 /56 prefix.

Alex

> Across different providers and contracts. I can’t think this argument
> is anything but a strawman.
> 
> There’s nothing a bit of regulation can’t fix. :-)
> 
> Ole 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>