IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 37164130E57 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:34:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 X5d7jyl_2kNB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:34:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (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 C8292128B01 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:33:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id m1so7446143otf.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:33:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LZY892OdUWhFehCOmeVYPFYVtKRTalISzgxsML44M98=; b=QKBfLX2JSNXED5mQLKSyH8Q6aYpt/UMbAB35pnJpQfqyvhUGTyghMQMieqQ9zhhFPY 9TNKscae8mVMwpmw0MYuOcNHJ0ydQMPdx168QqAzF8a90AVwSWuxAU+bM6CsF1tTj18e g/xD5c7DBvhYTlZA75Rea7s/AkBpCHQfuGYRa1760515rxEOw7MLxNX3SmyxCb0hS6k7 WL+4yyPtPADgBp36PHNXKpMhnAjtd39GijDt25qOoWTzSftQfjwuBZgY8rHGsJ1r6J8q YdQev7G+IA3TH8u8OM08pXhjSmnbNrgj/ezSVxkmdmnU853Qtzyv8igJq+anD3LojO4X PCRQ==
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; bh=LZY892OdUWhFehCOmeVYPFYVtKRTalISzgxsML44M98=; b=f1nBQ/2kFlns9OSLVc6W0Jo7v3ueDF4iX40DWFoRMzsUhWW9ufrM5VZWMcCujrEor7 mj4F7/ttYEGydA3OJUyfxFkzqTIaPxVpA0iFEeNdB6nvW0ovFjEJN2f3qT+ZLeL5M8qd 4L/xJPKxjlsCmDBRREErbbOfJwSRWzXNaOXLE+DIhy6cHJp68WvNlfdLbwu5q1CZONVZ yJLR1Me+l9mj9jWlTiCe8GyhLisiYqHiJRv3xhF8QCM+cVFxkAm5ho2Hz2VWLdPZihFH UIBixK4NmYRVkj85pF4jIwCQof7+M9wtAT6RrYVXIczAvRwpvZMQVi8+0QwdShiwCX5x HeVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaLu8bUjOvVybV+D995W0kD1gSensynu+XbDaB9y0pzTu8xEwG+ COaeXhhBNH7VoNZ28pF+arbWz99Bm7/mFc531l8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbHn4zPZm7KjZW5gd2tkV8dWTBIYY6f4895k2Q/IQdO4tjJRm7P7iDmAVPFmRFL+WVOIVrWbGQrXLHDff4ebsY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:110:: with SMTP id i16mr496248otp.72.1550100838853; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:33:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <77ecf321-b46e-4f25-7f68-05b15714a99e@si6networks.com> <CAHL_VyDdHuEAc9UdeiRp9f+c0tdzyoLwPY1rJbZmbWAuq96Uuw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902051127510.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se> <7a401098-ef51-86d4-064b-056e061a4472@gmail.com> <CAHL_VyDACS172yQoSiz7s+FvrQWchesGXNx73FkA2T057q0YPQ@mail.gmail.com> <1dda35a9-2dfd-3fad-7a32-47ac0753a6bf@gmail.com> <CAHL_VyCYqotiZArQgYiROyLMs0W7vNzESPEvhDr5VStoA30W0g@mail.gmail.com> <7328944b-d541-13ef-93f2-e7b25ffb44fb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7328944b-d541-13ef-93f2-e7b25ffb44fb@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:33:46 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xPtKZW54nBwQMNoBZxn0aY6QMtR40caCmVeQ1UjmRG9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ddb0700581cef93a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eJxd0O0qO2IaUEPAyrAIxcf23go>
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, 13 Feb 2019 23:34:02 -0000

On Thu., 14 Feb. 2019, 03:07 Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> Le 13/02/2019 à 16:57, Richard Patterson a écrit :
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 15:44, Alexandre Petrescu
> > <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Storing the old lease to persistent storage also gives the CPE
> >>> visibility if the prefix does change.  If it does, it can then send
> >>> RAs with lifetime 0 to deprecate the old prefix on the LAN side.
> >>
> >> Which lifetime?  Prefix Information Option's (PIO's) Valid Lifetime or
> >> Preferred Lifetime?
> >>
> >> I doubt this deprecation work straightforwardly on stacks of user's
> >> laptops (Windows) on LAN side, unless one tries, of course.
> >>
> >> I am saying it because recently confronted with linux absence of visible
> >> lifetime fields in Neighbor Cache, otherwise urgently needed for other
> >> contexts.
> >>
> >
> > The preferred lifetime of the old prefix in a PIO.
> > I'm not aware of issues using this method to deprecate an address on
> > any of the common host implementations.
>
> not sure I can see two lifetimes (Valid, Preferred) of routes in routing
> table in host implementation linux with ip -6 r command.  Despite that,
> deprecation of addresses as you suggest may indeed work.
>

If you want to experiment, try the 'DeprecatePrefix' option of 'radvd'.



> Alex
>
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email