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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Tue, 19 February 2019 12:49 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 53779130ED7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 04:49:09 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 AkeEZAKMi4mP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 04:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.go6lab.si (mx.go6lab.si [91.239.96.23]) (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 17F1F12867A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 04:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2505B660CA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:49:01 +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 WA_B_v9Wqijk for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:49:00 +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 36C6265FC3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:49:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from haktar.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:5::2c]) (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 464EA80583 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:48:59 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1550580539; bh=rukT29HCo/XBmq3VJsEXyHgLlGHFwyB/P6Kb3UFCBwY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ktrb72vj9gpuF7EcQ80uq5PFIIc/xQK4d2D7B34TRvOttX89uMy17v2KfZynkompd jb3b/fmaipvmxWeejzhbSsmqjmmEa1WrbcswlZUPk7+2rmFM/LmKAxmbCs7dm7ucJ4 xZB587R4Hj+HYtxWrb2UbFL66h57aFB5vM2obo5Q=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.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> <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com> <65DB4854-97D2-4C31-A691-2CD93812EF93@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCMpCcGkEQu+RV1GRf2QLB-HD0+AOOBV0YhfQ5sbydVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CE7A0CD-97D9-46A0-814D-CAF8788F9964@consulintel.es> <e3e0bf2273e04f15b792665d0f66dfe5@boeing.com> <4c5fab33-2bff-e5b5-fc1d-8f60a01a146d@go6.si> <b4525832-9151-20bf-7136-31d87ba6c88d@huitema.net> <463f15cf-2754-e2e8-609d-dc0f33448c6c@go6.si> <ff649810-7242-7bc2-d36f-3f998f7bdd71@asgard.org> <9CDF41CA-83B4-4FC4-B995-EF79727C5458@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2wA+vLmU7+sU6xLK7TO6pWfNQA5shs9zp=PqANCihLmBQ@mail.gmail.com> <BAB3061A-1808-4C0E-AA1B-2D7DD5BA63FC@employees.org>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <de9b1610-e4e4-bf6a-a6e9-6c9127b54522@go6.si>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:48:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BAB3061A-1808-4C0E-AA1B-2D7DD5BA63FC@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gMmvvvWIPecYvQ2BIffEGRTFl1o>
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, 19 Feb 2019 12:49:09 -0000

On 19/02/2019 13:22, Ole Troan wrote:
> Indeed. Wonder how these pesky mobile phone operators manage to
> deliver the same telephone number to a user, for years. Across
> different providers and contracts. I can’t think this argument is
> anything but a strawman.

Ole,

 From general architecture point of view I'm also a big proponent of 
static prefix delegations. However, operators have different operational 
requirements and I think it's fair to make end host (and CPE) more 
robust to accommodate different architecture designs.

Making things more robust and resilient can't hurt, can it? :)

> 
> There’s nothing a bit of regulation can’t fix. :-)

Careful what you wish for ;)

Cheers, Jan