IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz> Thu, 14 February 2019 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@helix.net.nz>
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 167C012D84D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 04:20:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.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 nYuzbONQg16o for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 04:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-xc30.google.com (mail-yw1-xc30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c30]) (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 EE73313106D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 04:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-xc30.google.com with SMTP id 189so2236470ywi.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 04:20:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=helix-net-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6Maphm9KracJXineTX9Rqmc5HfPbSeaTPwdOd2LQ9Z8=; b=tiLCc4d56qC9zQ54Gn6ds8ApOZwpBE+9PwTNYY2QDO4UaqqpRqh/0a2OWN6DLwuQiZ KGW8cKtWk01/NkbKlCc4oKLknxgtfymMdewhkf/pan7DOLegLx94Dy68/wc/ignOjMyb 6A4Q/zRzaZWfBBKKIl+j/wOCbskEjzxxsDDd1UExIu/eFOz/wJlvQCyeJiqcjZOBCWEA Y1g93lYEhYGUzkawuF1GPiBRFMSMt7jiEvLNMA+Zuc5756T1Xoa6wFafDBv99eyN3AjE WSodh9rU9U6KsyLOsQqsKUdUdlTcaTaWa1GkpsghslsvUvR5/9nPdJ74Yb3a4GKzwtv+ i2+g==
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=6Maphm9KracJXineTX9Rqmc5HfPbSeaTPwdOd2LQ9Z8=; b=CJ7Uq2uqya3Z/ecG8vWODAOJqofPDmRis820ZVVUsvtLbwLRuPQBJ7aAwsxVLEswP4 1cOyIcOomM9/RZ8MSypFBf+ikdvlPOjXpTELVhAToVzy76fLLelvLSt4OC9J2h//XNeM E/nDvKmc4WBPJDYpgp6H3UDjhMnu0dnDa32t1g49SAe3/pvWE9zqx8/T1C9QBbfmYBfS I7Ky2U/fEVxhEXxoe4jsJNB2uiE2S1WcRTU4Lz9gN2F5Fp6cOxeqhoHxe9mLQ2DlXj9Q ubVOb1sJfE251K0IoiYrEN5xe5nUQX5S69DUacEZH2++OZRLxK+QMDjul7GQP02OEbZ7 UCtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZuSgmjKlbQH2U0LjanqhJUKykIMaYAMQuN198oq7nI4ZiKbpq4 nzPCPbBcPjUxOxHhefXY2+FxSJbMRbk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaL/LKNAcUVhZBYAD12/5hmx27lhmjcYBLdcfPo89jXMISunkD/kjXrH4rpe0iWJAXNsVKZeA==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:a00f:: with SMTP id x15mr2721608ywg.163.1550146820053; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 04:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-f171.google.com (mail-yb1-f171.google.com. [209.85.219.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v4sm632347ywb.98.2019.02.14.04.20.19 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 04:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-f171.google.com with SMTP id s76so2275482ybs.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 04:20:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:24d3:: with SMTP id k202mr2795299ybk.90.1550146818840; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 04:20:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <1c7ebabb-d6f6-d877-d4aa-d6c0fc7d5c60@go6.si> <6278.1549471453@dooku.sandelman.ca> <CAO42Z2xdKtLJV11KXELBKca6CWn=B6Avz6bO_94kFFXaKiZ-pQ@mail.gmail.com> <4602.1549908472@localhost> <CAO42Z2w1swQNuwnrOyTCEMXt0NSyrBx7Ww3kUN-7dfEV=fvk3A@mail.gmail.com> <c16e0e1f-1ed2-ad88-80f1-070bdd8bccca@go6.si> <1F2C2AEE-1C7D-481C-BBA7-7E507312C53A@employees.org> <e56a6e5b-648d-200e-c35d-97f15a31fb2a@asgard.org> <CAO42Z2zh7fKAgQJq9aLCTiFoSSsTeGM=pK3gXitg+gcxH=9fhQ@mail.gmail.com> <d38857c2-6e92-91d6-bb5d-d3eeeb61276a@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yb47OyXk__Sz-kO00pfcBJgLAhff5DF=mpAddR0iCnAA@mail.gmail.com> <2612280f-195a-ae7a-b3b1-9022d9282fa7@foobar.org> <56F813F4-C512-40A9-8A68-1090C76A80F6@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com> <65DB4854-97D2-4C31-A691-2CD93812EF93@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCMpCcGkEQu+RV1GRf2QLB-HD0+AOOBV0YhfQ5sbydVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <1e31ec6a-a743-3034-51e4-19d88e379475@go6.si>
In-Reply-To: <1e31ec6a-a743-3034-51e4-19d88e379475@go6.si>
From: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:20:07 +0000
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAHL_VyAhbUVLwi2ViwrDNYi-Fy3j1TY2-Aq5SLCPtt5OdiFFdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHL_VyAhbUVLwi2ViwrDNYi-Fy3j1TY2-Aq5SLCPtt5OdiFFdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/u120aLAnnGZQf5QKDHfvVHEBvz0>
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, 14 Feb 2019 12:20:23 -0000

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 11:48, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> wrote:
>
> Hmm... does that mean that also every enterprise network with staff
> accessing the Internet from their network should have dynamic prefixes
> and change all the time? I don't think that network people at all those
> companies would agree.

Bit of a different dynamic there, we have a moral obligation to
protect our customers, I imagine employers would have a different
feeling on the matter.

My point was rather that there are often reasons why an operator has
built things in such a way, and it's not always just because they
didn't understand IPv6 very well.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email