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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 31 January 2019 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 67530130EE5; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 04:54:06 -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=steffann.nl
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 tqBdqFnaYynz; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 04:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 82093130EDA; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 04:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415734B; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:54:02 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date:date :in-reply-to:x-mailer:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1548939240; bh=poNuF5ME4P5npN3urJcYVyN3533ISAmaR/FNWcPDNnY=; b=p qQWtqA+90+ZBoJShKBoIwixWCVyAnbQPyFyjRNQx+5dbTmH8wp5tr6vuBH5G12OM /IJTzXyYLAIRC49KPTchiEWG3BXHxmwF/JXBKMBA/g6V2DGUb57z4VpsHWNzPflu 1Hp2LQ+Ck2l88BZZvM1Gmuyvepsgi0AgeK9cct6Zqo=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ya_tgBNUWx7w; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:54:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:642e:e602:1bc4:1829] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:642e:e602:1bc4:1829]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8FB74A; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:53:59 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16C101)
In-Reply-To: <44fda109-c84b-4b30-f15b-a8f2a083342c@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:53:59 +0100
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F124C761-B99E-4A6C-BE5D-AEDF1BAC48CF@steffann.nl>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901311236320.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F1C19A2F-F397-4164-BFBC-D1410407E63A@steffann.nl> <44fda109-c84b-4b30-f15b-a8f2a083342c@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eBYHMmhky6s20WSbuYx_0at9BoI>
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, 31 Jan 2019 12:54:06 -0000

Hi Fernando,

> You don't really know where these boxes are going to be deployed. I know
> of several places where you do experience electric outages several times a week.

That doesn't require a write until the connection comes back with a different prefix. The "bit of engineering" I mentioned does have to include a bit of code to only write the new prefix once it has been replaced by something else.

Cheers,
Sander