IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Thu, 07 February 2019 11:47 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 CA2D613110B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:47:17 -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 uDrInG6YEnsg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:47:16 -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 79C501310F7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29A8660D7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:47:14 +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 dxOmoQdib4A0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:47:14 +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 EC5F165FC3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:47:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ISOC-BMDKQ4.local (unknown [91.239.97.208]) (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 3ED5E8072B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 12:47:13 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549540033; bh=9c3HyLnQliC7DGTc3469WPOLHZQ3bsfQzvhVD4X066o=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=rQUUXRpvMnA2Mv6t8nvrU900Ofhm14ZQnfFhiuUYbelXcIHYaWTDGDqfnQzBIDIaO ifrb/Ogy/zvY0ZQMeEYQ4iRcOCZso3KTfBcI35PY7S3dt2FLDRRCXwGy7xxeqkoZC5 mVnRyjnwqJhK7NZXdmyjxuePKpeeuy6XmWO08rM4=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <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> <m1gqyJC-0000FkC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2wKh-vXmv=dNmr6oEmGnw09ajrr2geYJ=H1DbSYSm=VuQ@mail.gmail.com> <m1gqzYT-0000F5C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <e8eabf0f-191a-a293-8051-35268a62a2bd@go6.si> <37ae87fb-93f5-4ec4-6e55-e35ce308f91c@asgard.org> <2aa19534-4856-f01d-8184-6c7ed125ca1b@go6.si> <9cdf8405-e777-6769-4d4f-f123c13a9456@asgard.org> <f4eaaf13-aff3-439f-4426-d32d3722abfe@huitema.net> <d714d577-74f8-6f1a-76a7-94811b615078@foobar.org> <81ab4307-efb8-c04e-7acb-a6f7f0ec839f@gmail.com> <e96be5dc-a1e9-a418-c77d-bbb3c6f10fa0@foobar.org>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <066f3e02-8eb6-c3ec-66f2-df50f39d9407@go6.si>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 12:47:12 +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: <e96be5dc-a1e9-a418-c77d-bbb3c6f10fa0@foobar.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/j-B6yw-iCiMPpDvXpDixTKn5kfI>
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, 07 Feb 2019 11:47:18 -0000

On 07/02/2019 10:23, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> In other words - as some other people put it - it's about ensuring that 
> ISP leases are honoured even if a customer disconnects and reconnects.

That should be the default behaviour ;)

>> In any case, because neither of the preceding options is guaranteed,
>> I think there is no choice: hosts must be able to recover from
>> dead addresses.
> 
> This is potentially the boil-the-ocean option.  It's hard not to think: 
> "perfect is the enemy of good enough".

Not necessarily. Let's define this as a network stack requirement and 
then whoever implements it - the world gets better - even if just one 
does it. Can't be worse than it is now, so any change is good in this case.

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email