IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?

Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp> Thu, 08 October 2009 04:02 UTC

Return-Path: <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>
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 1DF433A681B for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.584, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 4-U+En5ZVdK7 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp [202.32.8.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265B03A6358 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.195]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n9844QOT016731; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:04:26 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id n9844Qa01531; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:04:26 +0900 (JST)
Received: from bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.82.141.45]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n9844Psv018311; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:04:25 +0900 (JST)
Received: from bsac29088.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bgas200085.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n9844Pef016026; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:04:25 +0900
Received: from mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (bgsx5626.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.18.151.10]) by bsac29088.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n9844PLn019464; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:04:25 +0900
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (edonet065.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp [10.19.137.65]) (authenticated bits=0) (envelope-from kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp) by mail.sys.biglobe.nec.co.jp (BINGO/BINGO/06101717) with ESMTP id n9844Pnr023676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:04:25 +0900
Message-ID: <4ACD64C8.60007@mesh.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:04:24 +0900
From: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vijayrajan ranganathan <vijayrn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?
References: <5988ed3c0910070925iaa3b136jd500d30037946a3a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5988ed3c0910070925iaa3b136jd500d30037946a3a@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:02:52 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Vijay

Speaking from an ISP operator's point of view,

> "transiency" of autoconf addresses in my design all the time? How safe
> & normal
> is it to replace all manual IPv6 address configuration with
> auto-configuration in a large IPv6 deployment esp in an environment

I would not want to replace manual confiburation with auto-config.
Not now, at least. Most of my network is manual configured.

> Another related question, is it common for a site's global prefix(es)
> to change? In this regard, are they any different from an IANA
> assigned IPv4
> network-id for example?

Customers don't like it when we ask them for a change of addresses.
I don't think that's going to change with IPv6 anytime soon but
it does happen, although not very often in my place.

Regards,
Seiichi


Vijayrajan ranganathan wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> Is there a notion that auto-configured IPv6 addresses based on
> globally unique prefixes are transient compared to manually configured
> ones?
> I know that we could configure them to have infinite lifetimes & such,
> but I am thinking of a large IPv6 deployment where these addresses are
> expected to be up 24/7. I mean, just the fact that lifetimes could be
> modified on the router, the advertising router could become
> unreachable etc.
> 
> As an IPv6 application developer, would I have to factor in this
> "transiency" of autoconf addresses in my design all the time? How safe
> & normal
> is it to replace all manual IPv6 address configuration with
> auto-configuration in a large IPv6 deployment esp in an environment
> that is very sensitive
> to non-availability of addresses?
> 
> Another related question, is it common for a site's global prefix(es)
> to change? In this regard, are they any different from an IANA
> assigned IPv4
> network-id for example?
> 
> Thanks & Regards
> Vijay
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrNZMgACgkQcrhTYfxyMkKXjACfeAE0KxKMG91jnaq/lec2xjrq
3y8Anip3kUDAG7Y2p4c1cBg0a1Sr3Gfp
=ylNx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email