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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Mon, 04 February 2019 12:07 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 8C8E6130E9C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 04:07:09 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 RI3dkfsFqjsz for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 04:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.go6lab.si (mx.go6lab.si [91.239.96.23]) (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 6B882130E86 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 04:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5736602B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:07:00 +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 hfhja1wxvvDr for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:06:59 +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 7987965FB6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:06:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from haktar.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:5::19]) (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 B0B28809E6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:06:58 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549282019; bh=7IzKnzeCjmPk7145KXLWbrXQ0122Niujmbj+T+Exhkk=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jCEHaHYWaJevEwcXI9YlYWJGN1Elq037yd8qRDgg95/JNhBENMTaPCArbSK/MGsEZ Bz2qv+kn1c6TwZwLKsyu8cELHjs3sbjD9KnxFnt1Dy+UyRc26mYgrrOOAi8T6++oK9 jUjRb/ak6W9dmW0vALbKTt5M8MBv94axLV2vz6Xs=
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> <ac773bb5-0da8-064b-d46b-3a218b8c9e7a@si6networks.com> <CFAEACC4-BA78-4DF9-AD8A-3EB0790B8000@employees.org> <a4f6742e-f18e-3384-d4cc-06bfab49101f@si6networks.com> <FEFA99C2-4F09-4D8F-8D51-C9D9D7090637@employees.org> <a484d5de-0dce-a41a-928e-785d8d80d05d@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2xzYQESqqsz4AEE89vx=AhvBEf8Yzyae9o7z1U1XYyarw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902031813310.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se> <23b3ffc3-7f01-6d15-ae93-c0e6932d53a6@si6networks.com> <857eef9b-e37d-1e3e-cf7f-ce2122f4d645@joelhalpern.com>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <1b61c642-c90f-f0bf-255a-b31b22d055b5@go6.si>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 13:06:56 +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: <857eef9b-e37d-1e3e-cf7f-ce2122f4d645@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RrpmhummeBwqDC8L0qljIbc313k>
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: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 12:07:13 -0000

Joel,

On 03/02/2019 19:30, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I have been trying to follow the discussion.  I think I have been able 
> to reconstruct the problem being discussed.
> 
> If I understand correctly, we are talking about CPE behavior when the 
> CPE receives IPv6 prefixes via DHCP-PD, and then advertises prefixes for 
> hust using RA PIO.  The assumptions that I believe Fernando is making are:
> 
> 1) The CPE Does not store its delegations across reboots.
> 2) The CPE crashes
> 3) The CPE requests a prefix from DHCP-PD
> 4) The CPE receives a different prefix than it received before.

5) Because there is no information in CPE about previous prefix - it 
does not send an RA with lifetime 0 for previous prefix to hosts, 
telling them to stop using addresses from that prefix.

Cheers, Jan