IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Mon, 04 February 2019 11:29 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 D5C14130E9B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 03:29:06 -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 RyTSwbh2qPNI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 03:29:04 -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 1118A130ECE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 03:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2736602B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:27:57 +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 CGAIHaUuFcho for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:27:56 +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 9B7D660749 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:27:56 +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 B8283809E6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:27:53 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1549279674; bh=S9PoBRB/3Xwm2Sik5NiuQyNj8dkZ8HQaCkGcl4eZmK8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nmkheDRpd8EVGJjm6yqew+HmrNJmsKLd2PZJ6k8A/eMsmjIdVbMTG78q74tTH8oln Rj2VD0WpP6xA/ccbZSeFbQSHLLk3SDavWHTNxVuQojfSCp+hUJuzDzi31YM7ejHbXm UcMWLRR2UBF3RLzNDL/ryK1MIPIwoLRLESSQ0TKs=
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> <CAO42Z2xzYQESqqsz4AEE89vx=AhvBEf8Yzyae9o7z1U1XYyarw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902031813310.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <49ed5a99-6c0c-91a5-ce29-37319854b851@go6.si>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 12:27:51 +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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902031813310.23912@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pyscYeR1e0pQpa8BcVP1Jm4I0Qs>
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 11:29:07 -0000

On 03/02/2019 18:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
>> A first hop CPE rebooting and being given a different PD prefix is 
>> effectively changing a transient packet loss event into the movement of
> 
> What about if it decides to choose a different /64 out of that /56? Do 
> we cover this in any documents? 

Very good point, actually. I've never seen that covered and it is as 
important as the issue that we are already trying to solve.

> The result to end systems is the same 
> regardless if it's different /64 out of the /56 or if it's different /56.

Yup.

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email