Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 26 February 2019 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 9DEAA130EC3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 02:33:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 um9e5aNlvh2I for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 02:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (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 BC1A21310FD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 02:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1gya2p-0000HVC; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:33:03 +0100
Message-Id: <m1gya2p-0000HVC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <20190220113603.GK71606@Space.Net> <28fbc2c305c640c9afb3704050f6e8d7@boeing.com> <20190220213107.GS71606@Space.Net> <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr0HBG+rhyFWg9zh0t3mW486Mjx9umjn+CRqAZg4z9r0dg@mail.gmail.com> <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com> <a73818d31db7422b99a524bc431b00ed@boeing.com> <CAO42Z2z9-48Gbb_Exf+oWUqDO=axSLpZBtqeDcxkAoFq5OziGw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S3624hnGauG1HaSWPMvQw0t2Q5R3gb8W4R8w3kuK7dcrWQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F07F2BB-2F37-4D12-9731-7892DF4E3D88@consulintel.es> <0a582916-af14-bd82-a4cd-002a36f8830b@huitema.net> <67515a73-26a5-3ed0-da88-1a4ce64550d3@foobar.org> <360afa02-cf23-375c-4876-780d3c2aa5ac@gont.com.ar> <CAHL_VyD34V=TRcsCp0DOO9HJNHyy5xkiMQ_cZoBa7zTE4fe5OA@mail.gmail.com> <ead01e0a-9211-7944-88d6-ae8d037c03a8@si6networks.com> <FB8B77EE-CC16-4418-BB5E-D44EE66D6B72@jisc.ac.uk> <29dcc6ed-03f6-3ead-6866-eecbefdf 1483@si6networks.com> <899A1249-D3D9-4824-8B2E-7E950FBB316A@jisc.ac.uk>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:06:24 +0000 ." <899A1249-D3D9-4824-8B2E-7E950FBB316A@jisc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:33:02 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ixXVYP2pdEp0ja94QSFl33q9kz8>
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, 26 Feb 2019 10:33:09 -0000

>So given that document is 12 years old, with that default copied from one that
> is 21 years old, is an update required?  
>
>And if so, to what?

I think this should be updated.

A long time ago, the model was that you would get a prefix from your ISP
and that was the only global prefix on the local network.

So with short lifetimes, if the internet connection would go down for a 
relatively long period, there would be no global prefix anymore and hosts
would have to resort to link local to communicate (which obviously fails
if there are multiple subnets).

Some time in the past, the thinking changed and now there should be a ULA
prefix in addition to any global prefixes.

So I think that with a ULA, it makes more sense for a CPE to limit lifetimes
to some multiple of the RA interval.