IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: slaac-renum: New rev of draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-08.txt)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 22 May 2020 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 EC1953A0A01 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 WVERy4eosNii for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF6DF3A0AAF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jc9Vz-0000LcC; Fri, 22 May 2020 17:23:15 +0200
Message-Id: <m1jc9Vz-0000LcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: slaac-renum: New rev of draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-08.txt)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <158986953939.9945.6882780269741835824@ietfa.amsl.com> <8354111a-7d3f-ecfa-bcf1-baaae27209ee@si6networks.com> <m1jb46e-0000K4C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <04027980-51a1-a831-df0c-750c4194333e@si6networks.com> <m1jbRDw-0000IQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <c8cb21e1-ce96-8fe3-8be8-1be225c916a9@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 May 2020 08:57:55 +1200 ." <c8cb21e1-ce96-8fe3-8be8-1be225c916a9@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 17:23:14 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/W_g7kYt36qn55AncmnD9cPSzwsM>
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: Fri, 22 May 2020 15:23:21 -0000

>Yes, of course. They *are* special. They work even if the WAN side drops
>and even if the WAN prefix changes. 

When ULAs were introduced, it was transparent to hosts. I know that
they now appear in address selection policy, but nothing will break if they
are not in the policy table.

>Yes. If there was a 4th type of address (we already have three, counting
>link-local), every router in the universe would need a fix.

This is a about hosts, not routers. I think it is bad to hardcode this
kind of knowledge in all hosts. That may come back to bite us.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email