IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 20 February 2019 06:38 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 A036512426A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:38:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 kDLfE89dV4br for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 158E61200B3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id C0155BB; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 07:38:05 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1550644685; bh=DOeDvoxK9EDGnVSIDUc+C3FYBMGsE446DIoD9Qu0tA0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=i/lt9wWVLqD5rsTax2dM7pP1Cli/WXpJuHHENF3pmK8WpVYbbqwzuB2whVYjpspo/ xVnOEXU07MfcTqUvztCgTm5lWANJgOnEef7pcgzPMmKnfYuZKPk95Gku/aU6NDmiLn 47VgizXObARcQroDBKPDlb8C2sMgK0ZhrsV1ZkZY=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC17FBA; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 07:38:05 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 07:38:05 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wa9gWoB_bWrYt79urHF8ihmMAbjDSZCBoZa8dn8SCNFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902200735480.24327@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <CAHL_VyCMpCcGkEQu+RV1GRf2QLB-HD0+AOOBV0YhfQ5sbydVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CE7A0CD-97D9-46A0-814D-CAF8788F9964@consulintel.es> <e3e0bf2273e04f15b792665d0f66dfe5@boeing.com> <4c5fab33-2bff-e5b5-fc1d-8f60a01a146d@go6.si> <b4525832-9151-20bf-7136-31d87ba6c88d@huitema.net> <463f15cf-2754-e2e8-609d-dc0f33448c6c@go6.si> <ff649810-7242-7bc2-d36f-3f998f7bdd71@asgard.org> <9CDF41CA-83B4-4FC4-B995-EF79727C5458@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2wA+vLmU7+sU6xLK7TO6pWfNQA5shs9zp=PqANCihLmBQ@mail.gmail.com> <BAB3061A-1808-4C0E-AA1B-2D7DD5BA63FC@employees.org> <bbd8b761-403a-5b3f-3f04-dc3bfdea116e@foobar.org> <6F3036C6-50A1-43C6-B554-31293B69E59D@employees.org> <433607c1-dbc6-a42e-cb17-dc209e33bdaa@si6networks.com> <12EA4FAE-BE3D-4CFE-9837-DF052F79A998@employees.org> <5bc3eaf0-3ef0-d954-b228-00a7faac7f4c@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2wa9gWoB_bWrYt79urHF8ihmMAbjDSZCBoZa8dn8SCNFw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ppUTUr-lSNzbh6GWiZQclf6APgM>
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 06:38:12 -0000

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Mark Smith wrote:

> - By default, hosts don't delete addresses from interfaces if the
> interface goes down. Addresses persist across interface down/up
> events. If the most common cause of hosts' interfaces going down and
> coming back up was considered to be attachment to a different link,
> then addresses would probably be deleted by default upon link down.

This is no longer true. If you install a Windows machine, ubuntu desktop 
(with networkmanager, which is the default), MacOS, Android, iOS, they ALL 
take the addresses away when there is a link-down.

What you're talking about is long gone.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email