IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 05 February 2019 06:04 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 E68DF131066 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 22:04:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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_MED=-2.3, 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=swm.pp.se
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 gNAgnJ7InRuS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 22:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 80002130DEC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 22:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 44AD6B5; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 07:04:48 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1549346688; bh=iPP7IZLjXSL1eMsUakumBIZvpZQrvNNcbfkvUihrsQM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=dW9JWjsW9xCcBQQYQT6ufzGNHnEfVnj3HI58na+47+HtIHbIrUdmjq+aH1XipvZZO QoL3kD4utpWq3fPKerhoW/ICSHE814F/uFB+U/YblT3LL2aJk2nfQwx/kZL0agKcJ0 yKZAVtwG/dkft8nP1di46idmi7PBbl5yWEEv1SaY=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4264BB1; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 07:04:48 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:04:48 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
In-Reply-To: <77ecf321-b46e-4f25-7f68-05b15714a99e@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902050702550.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VcaV0ybLaUypNF7PMLsGOYwZuCE>
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 06:04:54 -0000

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, Fernando Gont wrote:

>> My current ISP has stated that their intention is to make sure people
>> keep the same prefix as long as their HGW is alive,
>
> So.. what happens when the CPE crashes and reboots?

Since the lease is still valid you get the same lease again when doing 
SOLICIT.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email