IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz> Thu, 14 February 2019 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@helix.net.nz>
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 139861275F3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:40:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 sjGilp2IYHop for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc2f.google.com (mail-yw1-xc2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18B3612870E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:40:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc2f.google.com with SMTP id u205so2142755ywe.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:40:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1abx/5EW0e++YIR6iFajlkmFl5eHeZrph6Srl1nOwrE=; b=m4b8nLLL1IcL2iWIGYgmoRkoqE3HmVwumR5mPo6+uO+LHei3lyboA3BsPMZoS3Egba 4Z3kn5zBZTvdgL64p5JCqKh+7Ngm2AlqQpnn+rvCqzActpxF/G0SNaXVAdR4VhwvIY6n OEDgMJPOe798VgAxJoHZI6qnVk23C83KtnutjCQ5WwJENw3x9Ajdz0Zum5PDNOgARVG1 laoaNG361w3TCR32lBD5IWaxcEJu3sNecC7dNWYIb/qzsrdGiKnTZdbv2MDOrA9iD/4k xmEEaYviOWepGLQyIAIy82pl+vS1fKn6zqTnQc/ONPGfyMaAJ2u0GDm4UywcUJ8QdrLD z5Xw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1abx/5EW0e++YIR6iFajlkmFl5eHeZrph6Srl1nOwrE=; b=amKK5NaqxZYZf6Hg6A9XoVOAINnivvpS3bZ4+qjrePiM6+ZMuTk5SldhnvQ5qkJkAI yqbNNIqyguiHBwLsixFHo1DdVccpZKewgOQ6J6TDeXQd0PB8Xzhc48VM6dcxFXo0rTNU Q9Hfopvr/tlqw2zBCENhXHag9ncf0qociBN8HpiixkII0veHS+ZhifgbFIvHuNYGZQ/X e0E9/MUzG7w88xYxt4q2oiRLTGbSlhcedRRteN4OeYWEUHLLFfo5x6NB35EyzCLFCKYI NunPShQbiW237VDKP3cI79EhMO7Al25nHhv2CaRrFC17LRektw44zf05BvlK22o5RqtJ EfsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZFbQ4j//crkCIt9JABAbr/+A8hiTPwpj5rXtseQrmIfTKAaAnR dOlnHSZ8swfuy9kn3ZClq+knHHeqg4E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaqcQJxEVS2Yoehw8q9MhF9M/Z3g5itL/s38cIQQLJ85QSaQZCd7QCs3ZHtzFwkNJ6GCAnMzQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:6344:: with SMTP id x65mr2327425ywb.377.1550140832122; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-f46.google.com (mail-yw1-f46.google.com. [209.85.161.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w2sm1362208ywl.10.2019.02.14.02.40.30 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:40:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-f46.google.com with SMTP id d190so2113196ywd.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:40:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:1b55:: with SMTP id b82mr2436360ywb.113.1550140830783; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:40:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@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> <46B8DB92-DC81-4242-9780-0D00FB6BDB7A@employees.org> <1c7ebabb-d6f6-d877-d4aa-d6c0fc7d5c60@go6.si> <6278.1549471453@dooku.sandelman.ca> <CAO42Z2xdKtLJV11KXELBKca6CWn=B6Avz6bO_94kFFXaKiZ-pQ@mail.gmail.com> <4602.1549908472@localhost> <CAO42Z2w1swQNuwnrOyTCEMXt0NSyrBx7Ww3kUN-7dfEV=fvk3A@mail.gmail.com> <c16e0e1f-1ed2-ad88-80f1-070bdd8bccca@go6.si> <1F2C2AEE-1C7D-481C-BBA7-7E507312C53A@employees.org> <e56a6e5b-648d-200e-c35d-97f15a31fb2a@asgard.org> <CAO42Z2zh7fKAgQJq9aLCTiFoSSsTeGM=pK3gXitg+gcxH=9fhQ@mail.gmail.com> <d38857c2-6e92-91d6-bb5d-d3eeeb61276a@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yb47OyXk__Sz-kO00pfcBJgLAhff5DF=mpAddR0iCnAA@mail.gmail.com> <2612280f-195a-ae7a-b3b1-9022d9282fa7@foobar.org> <56F813F4-C512-40A9-8A68-1090C76A80F6@consulintel.es>
In-Reply-To: <56F813F4-C512-40A9-8A68-1090C76A80F6@consulintel.es>
From: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:40:19 +0000
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ac37ksKmAWpwKd0I7Mm6LLPkJpE>
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:40:38 -0000

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 10:22, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Why not? This is already happening in IPv4. I've got from a major operator in Spain (and other operators in other countries do the same), the same IPv4 address for decades! I'm talking about residential services, with both DSL and GPON. Not to mention business services were you actually pay for that static address a monthly fee.
>
> Any contract can have special clauses, that clearly indicate that "in case of major technology or network changes or similar events, renumbering can happen and in those situations the customers will be alerted with a minimum of 1 month" (this is just an example, I can think in many alternative wordings).


If we're ignoring the network topology issues, then the next obvious
issue is privacy and tracking.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email