IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Thu, 14 February 2019 19:26 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 8F343129441 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:26:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 tFRk6H9itmHn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:26:53 -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 B8787130F74 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0820F660C4; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:26:49 +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 H3emMePE4RwY; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:26:46 +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 BE26665E78; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:26:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from haktar.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:102:610e:8078:3a49:d609]) (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 6C53A8054D; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:26:46 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1550172406; bh=E9BGIQiuBTGi5R8hax6vPJBkeVLmP+kR5yOsy5dahNM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=oXBseK51mS/SYxPidKnwK+rZ2+g5wUL+x0/NiJYw8OdeiI6FnwKpzIHM3kjH1QuXu PtdjaPADV1Isy5OO0vFU8VqoWf1LYVA+fL13iOg3unbu9cuCm7wHg4usnroDfxzEJX qtArKq2ntEYiDci7kAvch1xlme1jnoEAlIgPks7w=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <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> <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com> <65DB4854-97D2-4C31-A691-2CD93812EF93@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCMpCcGkEQu+RV1GRf2QLB-HD0+AOOBV0YhfQ5sbydVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <1e31ec6a-a743-3034-51e4-19d88e379475@go6.si> <CAHL_VyAhbUVLwi2ViwrDNYi-Fy3j1TY2-Aq5SLCPtt5OdiFFdg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <9f01acea-39c8-7f54-eb04-b9244616a531@go6.si>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:26:45 +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: <CAHL_VyAhbUVLwi2ViwrDNYi-Fy3j1TY2-Aq5SLCPtt5OdiFFdg@mail.gmail.com>
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/gyUNLmrNEy0ONF26ZDDOctKIIfY>
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 19:26:55 -0000

On 14/02/2019 13:20, Richard Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 11:48, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm... does that mean that also every enterprise network with staff
>> accessing the Internet from their network should have dynamic prefixes
>> and change all the time? I don't think that network people at all those
>> companies would agree.
> 
> Bit of a different dynamic there, we have a moral obligation to
> protect our customers, I imagine employers would have a different
> feeling on the matter.
> 
> My point was rather that there are often reasons why an operator has
> built things in such a way, and it's not always just because they
> didn't understand IPv6 very well.

I know how much pressure sometimes politics people puts on operators and 
tries to steer how network design is done ;)

I believe that big operators understand IPv6 quite well and that's why 
things work well in their networks - but we still need to make defaults 
better so everyone else suffers less.

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email