Re: Stability and Resilience (was Re: [v6ops] A common...)

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

Generally, I agree with what you are saying, but I'd like to see something
like the following added as well;

Even if an ISP intends to change the IPv6 prefix regularly in
the longer-term, say every few months or even each month at an extreme, in
the shorter-term IPv6 prefixes SHOULD be stable, for time periods of hours,
days, and maybe even weeks at a time.  Or, put another way, CPE devices
SHOULD NOT get a new IPv6 prefix every time they are rebooted.  Note: even
in locations where utility power is generally stable, power outages
frequently occur in clusters over a few hours or days.  This occurs when an
emergency repair is made to restore power and then more permanent repairs
cause short outages in the following hours or days. In this scenario, each
of these events in the cluster SHOULD NOT result in the CPE receiving a
different IPv6 prefix.

Conversely, when widespread power events occur, affecting thousands or even
tens of thousands of customers, it may not be practical or even possible
for an ISP to guarantee all CPE will receive the same IPv6 prefix they had
before.  Therefore to the extent possible, CPE and local networks SHOULD be
resilient to their ISP provided IPv6 prefix changing, sometimes even
unexpectedly changing.

Thanks.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:36 AM Lee Howard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think I have heard the following suggestions in this conversation. I
> hope that taken all together, rather than as individual spot solutions,
> they can be a consensus recommendation.
>
>
> ISPs should, as much as possible, reissue the same prefix to customers.
> Some things ISPs can do to increase the chances of this:
>
>    1.
>
>    Share lease information between redundant DHCPv6 servers. Most ISPs
>    probably have redundant servers, since this is critical provisioning
>    infrastructure. It may be difficult to synch information between servers
>    for millions of leases over tens of milliseconds of latency; see RFC6853,
>    "DHCPv6 Redundancy Deployment Considerations." Maybe DHCP vendors can
>    report.
>
>    2.
>
>    Aggregate above the provider edge device, so that grooming customers
>    between Provider Edge boxes (PEs) doesn't force a renumbering. It's been a
>    few years since I worked on CMTSs, but when I did they did not support
>    MP-BGP well (if at all), so routes had to be aggregated on the PE, or
>    leaked in the IGP which is bad for convergence time. Maybe PE vendors can
>    report.
>
>    3.
>
>    Set DHCPv6 lease timers very low prior to grooming events. A short
>    interval during the maintenance window will increase load on the DHCPv6
>    server until timers have been returned to normal values.
>
>    4.
>
>    In the case of a PE reboot, use DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery to rebuild the
>    routing table. I think all of the necessary information is in those
>    responses. Again, last time I was working on CMTSs, this feature was not
>    supported. Maybe PE vendors can report.
>
>
>
> Networks should, as much as possible, be resilient to prefix changes. Some
> things networks can do to improve resilience:
>
>    1.
>
>    Write a learned prefix to non-volatile memory and issue a DHCPv6 Renew
>    for that prefix on reboot.
>
>    2.
>
>    Use dynamic DNS and shorter TTLs.
>
>    3.
>
>    Implement something like NETCONF to distribute prefix information to
>    policy devices like firewalls or SD-WAN controllers. I think a separate
>    document describing this application of NETCONF would make sense.
>
>
>
> In the case of failures, it cannot be assumed that sessions will stay
> active. We try to build in redundancy and resilience where we can, but
> where there's a single point of failure (such as CE or PE), and it fails
> (such as an unplanned reboot), our expectations should be appropriate.
>
> Is this a reasonable summary?
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================