IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Sun, 18 October 2009 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4421C28C0ED for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QBm4xIlglffj for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D144228C0F6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=1799; q=dns/txt; s=rtpiport02001; t=1255872501; x=1257082101; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20"Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)"=20<shemant@cisco.co m>|Subject:=20RE:=20Are=20IPv6=20auto-configured=20addres ses=20transient?|Date:=20Sun,=2018=20Oct=202009=2009:28:1 7=20-0400|Message-ID:=20<B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D 084DF2A3@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>|To:=20"Brian=20Haber man"=20<brian@innovationslab.net>,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20"Margaret=20Wasserman"=20<mrw@sandstorm.net>|Cc: =20<ipv6@ietf.org>,=20"Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)"=20<she mant@cisco.com>|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |In-Reply-To:=20<4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net> |References:=20<5988ed3c0910070925iaa3b136jd500d30037946a 3a@mail.gmail.com><1C461E2E-C218-42EF-BC23-D8B1B4389C40@s andstorm.net>=20<4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net>; bh=qlPFhEQYfHA29c0MWNvZ1Sf5uOdrXRTHjFlfWrBDzK0=; b=gIcFtnnIhTvJ8UphygjrBhyy2dyuLZw+Zc0X5vUpve2bABZATCIb8NlR 6rFlpk2Q65Mw7GVYbm8VknR4elITPgMwGZ62oW4E8m+hxt2MC8hwBBWQd ZFdlnDmjRKexxmFhDa3mZLw46kKdhkdLxUyF4kyhgwQGiJEFiCDMjZvbA 4=;
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAIO02kpAZnwN/2dsb2JhbADAYZZVhDEEgVs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,581,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="63657563"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2009 13:28:20 +0000
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9IDSKIK016931; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:28:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:28:20 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:28:17 -0400
Message-ID: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D084DF2A3@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?
Thread-Index: AcpOh1s5Gjp9PKefQ7K8KdDkSleMxABbEg8w
References: <5988ed3c0910070925iaa3b136jd500d30037946a3a@mail.gmail.com><1C461E2E-C218-42EF-BC23-D8B1B4389C40@sandstorm.net> <4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@sandstorm.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2009 13:28:20.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[DBDCCBF0:01CA4FF6]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:28:16 -0000

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
>Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 1:35 PM
>To: Margaret Wasserman
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?


>I *think* that Vijay is asking a more general question about 
>applications rather than how to get IPv6 addresses (or service).  If I 
>interpreted his earlier comments correctly, he is asking what does an 
>application know about an address that it is using.  For example, if 
>Vijay's application is long-lived would it be affected by an address 
>becoming deprecated and no longer reachable.  In this case, the address

>stays reachable for some period of time until the deprecated prefix is 
>removed from the routing system.

I don't see any problem here.  Till a specific long-lived application
screw case is described, I am not convinced the app needs to know
anything related to lifetimes of addresses.  On an IPv6 node, if
anything related to the addresses on a network interface changes, the
changes will affect the network interfaces the app is using.  Even in
IPv4, if an app is using an IP address of a network interface on the
node, the app tracks changes of the IP address on the network interface
- so IPv6 apps should do the same.     

>I suppose there is a related question as to how an application that
uses 
>IP addresses in referrals should behave.  Would an application find it 
>useful to know the lifetime associated with the auto-configured
addresses?

It may make sense that referrals for IPv6 do not merely use IP addresses
but switch to using a PIO (Prefix Information Option from RFC 4861) per
address.  The PIO contains the Prefix Lifetime.

Hemant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email