IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Fri, 22 February 2019 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 18912126D00 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 dvAqlz4ml2KI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (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 12E4F124D68 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xsmtp31.mail2web.com ([168.144.250.234] helo=xsmtp11.mail2web.com) by mx148.antispamcloud.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1gx5W1-000hdx-Ap for 6man@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:45:02 +0100
Received: from [10.5.2.35] (helo=xmail10.myhosting.com) by xsmtp11.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1gx5Vx-0007Mw-0u for 6man@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:44:57 -0500
Received: (qmail 30827 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2019 07:44:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.103]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.56.42.202]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail10.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <6man@ietf.org>; 22 Feb 2019 07:44:54 -0000
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <B6E2EC33-EEAF-40D0-AFCC-BDAFA9134ACD@consulintel.es> <20190220113603.GK71606@Space.Net> <28fbc2c305c640c9afb3704050f6e8d7@boeing.com> <20190220213107.GS71606@Space.Net> <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr0HBG+rhyFWg9zh0t3mW486Mjx9umjn+CRqAZg4z9r0dg@mail.gmail.com> <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com> <a73818d31db7422b99a524bc431b00ed@boeing.com> <CAO42Z2z9-48Gbb_Exf+oWUqDO=axSLpZBtqeDcxkAoFq5OziGw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S3624hnGauG1HaSWPMvQw0t2Q5R3gb8W4R8w3kuK7dcrWQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F07F2BB-2F37-4D12-9731-7892DF4E3D88@consulintel.es>
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=huitema@huitema.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFIRX8gBCAC26usy/Ya38IqaLBSu33vKD6hP5Yw390XsWLaAZTeQR64OJEkoOdXpvcOS HWfMIlD5s5+oHfLe8jjmErFAXYJ8yytPj1fD2OdSKAe1TccUBiOXT8wdVxSr5d0alExVv/LO I/vA2aU1TwOkVHKSapD7j8/HZBrqIWRrXUSj2f5n9tY2nJzG9KRzSG0giaJWBfUFiGb4lvsy IaCaIU0YpfkDDk6PtK5YYzuCeF0B+O7N9LhDu/foUUc4MNq4K3EKDPb2FL1Hrv0XHpkXeMRZ olpH8SUFUJbmi+zYRuUgcXgMZRmZFL1tu6z9h6gY4/KPyF9aYot6zG28Qk/BFQRtj7V1ABEB AAG0J0NocmlzdGlhbiBIdWl0ZW1hIDxodWl0ZW1hQGh1aXRlbWEubmV0PokBOQQTAQIAIwUC UhFfyAIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEJNDCbJVyA1yhbYH/1ud6x6m VqGIp0JcZUfSQO8w+TjugqxCyGNn+w/6Qb5O/xENxNQ4HaMQ5uSRK9n8WKKDDRSzwZ4syKKf wbkfj05vgFxrjCynVbm1zs2X2aGXh+PxPL/WHUaxzEP7KjYbLtCUZDRzOOrm+0LMktngT/k3 6+EZoLEM52hwwpIAzJoscyEz7QfqMOZtFm6xQnlvDQeIrHx0KUvwo/vgDLK3SuruG1CSHcR0 D24kEEUa044AIUKBS3b0b8AR7f6mP2NcnLpdsibtpabi9BzqAidcY/EjTaoea46HXALk/eJd 6OLkLE6UQe1PPzQC4jB7rErX2BxnSkHDw50xMgLRcl5/b1a5AQ0EUhFfyAEIAKp7Cp8lqKTV CC9QiAf6QTIjW+lie5J44Ad++0k8gRgANZVWubQuCQ71gxDWLtxYfFkEXjG4TXV/MUtnOliG 5rc2E+ih6Dg61Y5PQakm9OwPIsOx+2R+iSW325ngln2UQrVPgloO83QiUoi7mBJPbcHlxkhZ bd3+EjFxSLIQogt29sTcg2oSh4oljUpz5niTt69IOfZx21kf29NfDE+Iw56gfrxI2ywZbu5o G+d0ZSp0lsovygpk4jK04fDTq0vxjEU5HjPcsXC4CSZdq5E2DrF4nOh1UHkHzeaXdYR2Bn1Y wTePfaHBFlvQzI+Li/Q6AD/uxbTM0vIcsUxrv3MNHCUAEQEAAYkCPgQYAQIACQUCUhFfyAIb LgEpCRCTQwmyVcgNcsBdIAQZAQIABgUCUhFfyAAKCRC22tOSFDh1UOlBB/94RsCJepNvmi/c YiNmMnm0mKb6vjv43OsHkqrrCqJSfo95KHyl5Up4JEp8tiJMyYT2mp4IsirZHxz/5lqkw9Az tcGAF3GlFsj++xTyD07DXlNeddwTKlqPRi/b8sppjtWur6Pm+wnAHp0mQ7GidhxHccFCl65w uT7S/ocb1MjrTgnAMiz+x87d48n1UJ7yIdI41Wpg2XFZiA9xPBiDuuoPwFj14/nK0elV5Dvq 4/HVgfurb4+fd74PV/CC/dmd7hg0ZRlgnB5rFUcFO7ywb7/TvICIIaLWcI42OJDSZjZ/MAzz BeXm263lHh+kFxkh2LxEHnQGHCHGpTYyi4Z3dv03HtkH/1SI8joQMQq00Bv+RdEbJXfEExrT u4gtdZAihwvy97OPA2nCdTAHm/phkzryMeOaOztI4PS8u2Ce5lUB6P/HcGtK/038KdX5MYST Fn8KUDt4o29bkv0CUXwDzS3oTzPNtGdryBkRMc9b+yn9+AdwFEH4auhiTQXPMnl0+G3nhKr7 jvzVFJCRif3OAhEm4vmBNDE3uuaXFQnbK56GJrnqVN+KX5Z3M7X3fA8UcVCGOEHXRP/aubiw Ngawj0V9x+43kUapFp+nF69R53UI65YtJ95ec4PTO/Edvap8h1UbdEOc4+TiYwY1TBuIKltY 1cnrjgAWUh/Ucvr++/KbD9tD6C8=
Message-ID: <0a582916-af14-bd82-a4cd-002a36f8830b@huitema.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:44:52 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1F07F2BB-2F37-4D12-9731-7892DF4E3D88@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
X-Originating-IP: 168.144.250.234
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 168.144.250.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=168.144.250.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: ham
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.05)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: EX5BVjFpneJeBchSMxfU5rnMwtg0w1Guz+EaE3CscBp602E9L7XzfQH6nu9C/Fh9KJzpNe6xgvOx q3u0UDjvOzJhg/Q5krmBhsXyEr7WU2Js1ujulqUFmMITHM77eiVihLP3X/pKGMaaUOqoXT7sCs7i TvJ2/ZGzVWB9scFAaCdIFaUvXN+CI+RGy3Me16pBuNKEwKrWwKExVdRofjrCBk5EpHPznVavQp4h 1cyzxbRC4xvs/7iGgDKhZ45D5vihvZAdx4vjUFLh0kXGIOazxFpgLxqZUFZdwbOLffZB9SIbeA2G NaAif0QyGEAJd8kel+zffa+S3paXsykGResyE7dAzbZabvf4+eAvvSn0D5YzxzA4C4+ILjmdkQoL 6F7cCSavQBrPoagEXfZ210Cx8bwqyT5p50x81ZKcmzCu2U1l0pLLr6Q2GfeLeJGF+80DrsibCyBr x+YtCB8oetqRijWKtLT9WR57oxUvRixjadcobnduoQv5Sp6y3SmK1n5SK/lIPtlUiBhTzlv5XU8Y E2iH1Wgh6RAenBR+licROGZo/5bs71XwBmcfZ8NfeEmrIg6PiKVNdhbpls6KZbV3SpeftSNTG1vh 7fOnvVcm9/Vk354Leo8WHhg9Xcph2esmZk4AVtnYApSiFQp1w3dnUjMTi5Xt/sRoctxyu5EZ7wRl sQ6lNTZIrBtlLeoEHaVN0z6bhalFEM/pjPCQA+BAlvU1uY02BpZUH+5G+hilxr1ZYSpQQtCkh8qZ SV0LCxtevP3up+1GCicWhdOcH1tGeyo7rM8dGkDCpbcOeKIsbCYhu1/rdU1t/SWu+yxj6TsAzBpI RKEYj3P5LT70ZY4uK12Se+z8wGp/D0quA+5xotO9UshveVgoiypAicYsWUtdcKaDTe3QRRhTm1Fh 3Md1t44cvttr0tmBjeIn/Z/emtVQvYq5Gwe6V5p1dZXUJLl9UHdlPJIlgYKUOVb4Kg3Ivfi62j4u w/K+m8SGihSRsuS3byv3CjhKpQiDxiH2EAzS5xSvMev/h5X3p2+rThvFRg==
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine9.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/vROVkK-Gx9aj6ASrK2PddnAXVrk>
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: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 07:45:07 -0000

Debating the beauty of NAT on an IPv6 list is surely good fun for some,
but could we get some progress on the original issue, which could be
summed up as a "bug in SLAAC"? Fernando filed that bug 3 weeks ago, I
saw hundreds of messages on the mailing list, but I did not see much
progress.

Do we agree that this is indeed a bug, or do we think that having users
disconnected from the Internet after a home router reboots is just a
desirable feature of IPv6?

Do we agree that it would be good if routers that reboot could just
reacquire the same prefix from DHCPv6 PD? Do we also agree that there
will always be a significant fraction of deployment in which that won't
be possible?

Do we agree that the working group should actually start working on some
improvement in SLAAC that would mitigate the issue? Not excluding of
course solutions that would also mitigate related egress filtering issue?

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email