IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Mon, 04 February 2019 11:19 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 B042B130E5B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 03:19:11 -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, 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 LO9gIYzGUOLQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 03:19:01 -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 C8898130E59 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 03:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5980B60749 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:18:29 +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 Gfc3r7Z4trS2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:18:28 +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 5827260343 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:18:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from haktar.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:5::19]) (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 B2535809E6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:18:27 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549279107; bh=WZKLfcN+dzespRz8AAua1bNW3hHHk9K9C3irkBG/UoM=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=amekCtgWNzgymo3ttjmGKU3oIOlCcWqWxqMVp5yj6eNsDPuR8FAmAxLHLnD0a5Hbt GmpCU/e+WthlOIf4p7A/yJNsNF4RtXM8ymx+NpjWOenzAzgxbm0sDhKrrY+Hf9Mner auNEu8xz8OWwKfMuF1HmdvuLLMhPPSSEEffqRJAA=
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: ipv6@ietf.org
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> <ac773bb5-0da8-064b-d46b-3a218b8c9e7a@si6networks.com> <CFAEACC4-BA78-4DF9-AD8A-3EB0790B8000@employees.org> <a4f6742e-f18e-3384-d4cc-06bfab49101f@si6networks.com> <FEFA99C2-4F09-4D8F-8D51-C9D9D7090637@employees.org> <a484d5de-0dce-a41a-928e-785d8d80d05d@si6networks.com> <A40C5116-9474-4F2B-BD94-F57D155ECD4C@employees.org> <b05e3872-d63b-108c-6c00-21b951dad263@si6networks.com>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <55b5f28c-67ad-d3c0-cd13-8c80542e2de7@go6.si>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 12:18:26 +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: <b05e3872-d63b-108c-6c00-21b951dad263@si6networks.com>
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/j0fhkbq2pTMJMvpLvV5nqZIGuSc>
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: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 11:19:12 -0000

On 03/02/2019 17:01, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Hosts can improve.
>> My point was that it isn’t obivous that very much more can be done from the network side.
> 
> CPEs can be required to advertise previously-advertised prefixes that
> are not valid anymore. 

...and this described behaviour is already implemented in Fritz Box CPEs 
and is solving this issue in real life on real networks.

Running code? There you have it, and not just running code - it's 
production. We just need others to do the same, hence the Standards 
document.

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email