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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Tue, 05 February 2019 10:42 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 B0182131066 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 02:42:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] 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 KPwLAcTdtktV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 02:42:23 -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 86CB8131036 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 02:42:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BC465FB2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:42:22 +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 egy60xzA5Gwu for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:42:21 +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 5088065E78 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:42:21 +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 135E8805CB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 11:42:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549363341; bh=F5vdxs2jnxsyKTXFggkhobo0Ru/QAmd+FrqFkczq0iU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=C3rvFhn9ciCtXrfgKWZLKnURYk9557DsYNoQ3OQX2lqUpt+OlcRtR4qY1ih4Z0wZ0 qGGkCkbvdIUPhdUpxjDwBoFmlETOqFSeuDk7XBADOaU5KqVbozT5Ej0guUMN1JNby6 VRPgFx0ChSP0t0xH0fALNGuNW7wFElokALDtk5fs=
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> <62b74cf1-9cb0-bba3-b078-cb6f48e90145@foobar.org> <m1gqeb9-0000GCC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <95f65ece-0f12-c2b0-860d-540db4b335b9@foobar.org> <m1gqfUT-0000K8C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <6c57ee1a-dc97-329c-7921-37e0a4a213cc@go6.si>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 11:42:20 +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: <m1gqfUT-0000K8C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
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/dUru-nbjM4SrxLW2M5HSJwl7KKA>
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 10:42:25 -0000

On 04/02/2019 15:44, Philip Homburg wrote:
> At the same time, for IPv4, NAT will hide most of these issues. We can only
> hope that CPE vendors will not add some kind of IPv6 NAT to deal with this
> problem.

sssshhh... don't say that again, please :)

Cheers, Jan