RE: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2]

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 A19873A1136 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:01:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 lnrCoYrIhOBE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB1A3A0A2E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml711-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CWPv82mS3z67KZT for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:59:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from msceml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.144) by fraeml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:00:51 +0100
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:00:51 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:00:51 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2]
Thread-Topic: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2]
Thread-Index: AQHWuCK7CvBEfxwG3ki1EmILGdO8nanC4xQg
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:00:51 +0000
Message-ID: <33e92cf7eedc4c8888b835ad7000bf2b@huawei.com>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0G8PjzE+pULte_AaOi=RHMLyto-YUQerGjQ=iOYnz+iA@mail.gmail.com> <0986B112-2159-4045-87F9-876B58F1D896@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0h9=7p+n=qnH1o1EHqtPrsaYebgvHciOJpP3=iXgNgKQ@mail.gmail.com> <0C739112-D8EA-42C3-BEFD-88C014D5BCD0@employees.org> <62bc0e56-85b8-42ea-c46b-4f2205dc435f@joelhalpern.com> <28C2E56B-1443-480A-B3D1-82E0F8CC0EC7@employees.org> <aabd41ad-1770-f2ac-77d6-62bfff1992c0@joelhalpern.com> <CC7C2B94-5A05-4682-8367-9072CC201C49@employees.org> <80ed3a3b-6e2c-188f-4c1e-c2ededfbbe0d@joelhalpern.com> <0188AC41-60B0-4BC6-810D-DC59CF9E4FB3@employees.org> <1931a638-64ed-f40e-07a3-67cf1eafb941@joelhalpern.com> <376D6BB0-87E2-42E5-9BC4-F3A2F04FA005@employees.org> <CAD6AjGSr-TPcGo7f9EGgoAahYLQTL68CUSq58LGMgD0=6GmRRg@mail.gmail.com> <8DC674FB-9F90-4C41-A323-62BD62934A12@employees.org> <CAD6AjGTYBs8YbHgCJJG84vgwXK4ZSCm65z6KXvZP9F+LdT_atg@mail.gmail.com> <038A830C-E024-42C6-917E-E6FF57829A1C@employees.org> <CAD6AjGTQVtJBJ3=aZBsF1WcdSK2k9b1hzeZXM6008w_2vpo6_w@mail.gmail.com> <948ACA2B-E45C-4289-A837-9F2536F20F8F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0tDTSH2F4=ZsdMJREy1k6equ9mZV0Au1bJPmKuzxeYVA@mail.gmail.com> <43C449AD-D116-4452-A4F2-79AE5A76539F@employees.org> <m1kcoXQ-0000G1C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <267D8461-47EC-443A-98DF-4FE990138B5A@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <267D8461-47EC-443A-98DF-4FE990138B5A@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.204.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Z4RDs55QBvu4KH2alu8CYKSjV3Y>
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:01:20 -0000

Hi all,
In year 1998 I did translate (NAT) our office (about 100 hosts) dynamically into 2 different carriers.
With ping check that primary link is alive.
Users have low chances to see switchover.
I mean: may be it is use case for NAT? "Stable connectivity for the case of ephemeral addresses".
Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> otroan@employees.org
> Sent: 11 ноября 2020 г. 15:03
> To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Ephemeral addressing [was Re: 64share v2]
> 
> Philip,
> 
> Let me rename this thread as this opens a much larger issue.
> While being able to rapidly reconfigure an end-user network using the layer3
> primitives in 6man, I don't think it's worth solving unless also the upper layer
> problems are solved.
> - How do TCP connections survive a renumbering event?
> - How do applications get notified to reconnect?
> - Do all applications have to change as a result? Or use a different transport
> layer?
> - What happens with DNS configuration? Are you assuming everyone has DNS-
> SD deployed and working?
> - What about other configuration? Static addresses for example?
> 
> Good luck I say...
> Until then I suggest that we continue (to pretend) that addresses must be long-
> lived.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
> 
> > On 11 Nov 2020, at 12:43, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Right, you do get a very clear L2 event on mobile networks.  If we
> >> want to make this general it might be needed in other networks.
> >> I thought it might be something to consider, given how many problems
> >> we've seen in broadband deployments, where the PE does DHCPv6 PD
> >> snooping as a relay, and seems to forget state. And unless the CE
> >> actively probes there's no way to recover.
> >
> > It seems to me that we need to rethink how we distribute prefixes and
> > other address information. At the moment the primary mechanism to
> > control the lifetime of a prefix or an address is a timer. But we know
> > that doesn't really work.
> >
> > If my laptop connects to a wifi, gets a SLAAC prefix and configures an
> > address and then later connects to a different wifi, then the valid
> > time of the SLAAC prefix is irrelevant, the laptop needs to stop using
> > the prefix. At the same time the router can invalidate the prefix at any
> moment.
> >
> > So the lifetime is nice for garbage collection, but doesn't have much
> > real world value.
> >
> > In many DHCPv6 PD installations we have the issue that the lifetime of
> > the prefix is completely detached from the forwarding state.
> >
> > If we define a new option to do prefix delegation using RA, then maybe
> > we can try to get rid of lifetimes are the primary mechnism and switch
> > to something more explicit.
> >
> > For example, a downstream device receives a prefix using RA. At some
> > point the downstream device either sees an RA from a new router or see
> > an RA from the same router without the prefix. That should trigger a
> > link attachment procedure where the downstream device verifies that it
> > still connected to the same link and that the upstream router still offers the
> same prefix.
> >
> > If verification fails then the device removes derived prefixes from
> > any downstream interfaces and tries to inform downstream devices.
> >
> > Ideally we can set all prefix lifetimes to infinity and they will
> > still get cleaned up in time through other mechanisms.
> >
> > I'm not in favor of duplicating DHCP features in RA. However, in the
> > case of prefix delegating, we may be able to fix the semantic gap
> > between what DHCP PD offers and what we really need.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------