IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Tue, 05 February 2019 15:45 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 9FC1A130E77 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 07:45:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 wiRZ-UA-PB8n for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 07:45:06 -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 83894130E6E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 07:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5E065FE3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:45:04 +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 EFW4qWqsPLYj for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:45:03 +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 EA57C603E3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:45:03 +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 D4222805A2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:45:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549381503; bh=QFwUWwx4QXse8sHtEMgxUXCUO2NnWtjf59yiU5dM2gs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ba5OrSD/CfcD060Qg8ByRA+G3S2GJDxCPAc52GnahNDikLrP8egErT2Kf9apUo++y AuBUrLBs5P/KFYLpppOB+Id8zpvW2RKlz2gtipfLAzKSU3RIq4xGOUCliDka4wQIBf eCxNUP0/CMR6dCkIJBDlwZ+vg8LTb3jHQPUVq4Ug=
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> <CAHL_VyDL3Abo5i=YA+4zUsaF=t5D+G-nNqM9e35Zx+VjYnJGrw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <8e5470af-5310-1978-7694-7f88b27a105a@go6.si>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 16:45:02 +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: <CAHL_VyDL3Abo5i=YA+4zUsaF=t5D+G-nNqM9e35Zx+VjYnJGrw@mail.gmail.com>
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/V4y1EHsp07ea5d6e-7a_XL90UfA>
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 15:45:09 -0000

On 05/02/2019 13:30, Richard Patterson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 12:10, Philip Homburg
> <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
>> Ideally every customer just gets a static /48. There is no technical reason
>> why this can't be made to work.
> 
> Not all network topologies can ensure a subscriber will always land on
> the same BNG, and I'm not super keen on redistributing millions of
> /48s all over the place.

Indeed... otherwise you end up with completely overblown IGP table.

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email