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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 21 February 2019 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 630DD130EB0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:58:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 L8-tv981eCUk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x12c.google.com (mail-it1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C211129AA0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id m137so655454ita.0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:58:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4G7ihUd3CU3OrW4/JRE1IxM9hDmlqQSMq3hE/HVUg60=; b=YYsy9tErL0eCn/oAOxUvZu2yhJIc54WxRBopAMgoMQfwTbiXwu31Er1ejDmc31yXtH XhRv2nf5718SPJv0X972aVHp4++3LHSfhK51rhQ67uR+LJw5Wv3Zxmeh2ETDuQgAzh0o Luxpi58rNqtENsvn/MDK/Yos7ILKn5b7mgklvMFgA+B8Dt4d7I4l/aTPqAGCD2ZWTP4F LwS97ejfH73fhfSgvWtJnJKxFBEYi0E8SKX/s5gVhKuMMnd61/bCfMYH6yGxX7xM7yDd TrPV7wQ0Obf01dGxqbi1OvG4G3YsYo+b2lkrbps4u0uNfRxQRK26nBNDiTfPTIKfmNrw T26g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4G7ihUd3CU3OrW4/JRE1IxM9hDmlqQSMq3hE/HVUg60=; b=NNlMShu1U6wyYugirvuxTee9wEHkDMEfXW31CJrp8YYzfI/kn9VVNT35ZSRuHC8B6z WpErA2SRvqFNWRGWwYMudbYsiH16Ddzgg5AJJQBQ6HxaSEKBx/63jMHNYgZkgO4q1IaT tEhKyJUJzhWN4ohb0cu7fVYp2fc0TWq3xhCcQ+9OhjH73BbigVHla2tqrm6y4WaCf+qU X5snIZaMwhCMvcSuaGlceR4UEb8vNRb/FPOX1ACttOEwuzCce3QhOkehw7z9WMFongyw s0UlkBYlbGIENmnecn1MGlLEdbm1qpvoNiZRQPAcZ6DZjypWDJcM3bZnlrWSufA81ykr KGWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZIgh90b3drf9rVpL8TWXd+motQJNBo77pCFxg56E217qez+SjH a1ISCl070pjV0keEz/zZ+u70GGkqEmwUwbeyOpmtsUwg
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZKnRRSdH6JSL0qQ3EEAI0wCSec3epdxcNn1vlCQNIQNBvfDKiz2BkLbxTYKm+QD6hAjqhUFF836kCMm0Jzcbs=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:4290:: with SMTP id i138mr806929itb.24.1550793488968; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:58:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <B6E2EC33-EEAF-40D0-AFCC-BDAFA9134ACD@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>
In-Reply-To: <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:57:57 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1kHdqFwctSB3rv6fYkYehUWB586FzL=59vo+xUynworA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000826200582703f7b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/k9wLWmyMxbukwJExoCcpkAbHSzo>
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, 21 Feb 2019 23:58:13 -0000

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 4:35 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

> Applications today seem to be all "HTTP(S)" or "QUIC", and they all had to
> learn how to deal with NAPT.  New protocols that embed IP addresses are
> killed by IPv4 NAPT anyway, so that ship has sailed - and everything that
> doesn't care about embedded IP addresses will nicely work throug NPTv6.
>

It has only sailed if we as an industry deploy NAT for IPv6 in a pervasive
way. If we do not, and NAT66 remains an uncommon configuration, then the
application breakage resulting from NAT66-only deployments will cause those
deployments to roll back to IPv4 and/or global IPv6.