IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Tue, 05 February 2019 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jan@go6.si>
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 AF48C13121D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 12:11:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=go6.si
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 ge2SJCC4Iwid for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 12:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.go6lab.si (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::23]) (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 53BCC131210 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 12:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234A76601A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11:17 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at go6.si
Received: from mx.go6lab.si ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bbxMN0QV3C7P for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.go6.si (mail.go6.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.go6.si", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (not verified)) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29C62603E3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ISOC-BMDKQ4.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:102:182a:e622:682:93c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Jan Zorz", Issuer "COMODO RSA Client Authentication and Secure Email CA" (not verified)) (Authenticated sender: jan) by mail.go6.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCFC0813D6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 21:11:15 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549397475; bh=QRMz1kZMpBM1l/plaP+F4z/q2oP2cq33Ocv16Wi9dFY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Pnlo3R2mzo2nDtiaHC8c5kJ6a27FrxpQKr3CV+14+8JJT3rKEQWnIOI7hdELHmzfB 1XX2BYyU8iHonFwrXjkdBOhiE/8fsAZD3GgivKjYk3QTgqesxM/LK/gMDbQ2l7Supo xPldErx2iRptPaeGN/XNVZ6OZPrERfYeJtH0FBQc=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: ipv6@ietf.org
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> <m1gqzYT-0000F5C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <e8eabf0f-191a-a293-8051-35268a62a2bd@go6.si> <37ae87fb-93f5-4ec4-6e55-e35ce308f91c@asgard.org>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <2aa19534-4856-f01d-8184-6c7ed125ca1b@go6.si>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 21:11:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <37ae87fb-93f5-4ec4-6e55-e35ce308f91c@asgard.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RnyLKuKXneFMHE7Ut1qRYSRAskE>
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 20:11:21 -0000

On 05/02/2019 18:54, Lee Howard wrote:
>>> Ideally every customer just gets a static /48. There is no technical 
>>> reason
>>> why this can't be made to work.
>>
>> Agreed 100% :)
> 
> 
> I cordially invite you to go build your own network, so you will 
> actually be able to tell somebody how to build their network.

I did. Many times.

He said "Ideally". I agree with that :)

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email