Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Sun, 27 October 2019 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E8A12003E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 15:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 uCEiQvK9oNw0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 15:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 523D61200B6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 15:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (246.51-175-81.customer.lyse.net [51.175.81.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90C174E11B7E; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 22:52:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDB5202D8CF; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 23:52:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1iOnqN-0000EpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 23:52:15 +0100
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ADCF08FD-1366-4CCB-984E-695D8E2AC2F8@employees.org>
References: <m1iOinq-0000J3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <44F39DE2-E142-4ED0-853E-2F3AAC6F4ADE@employees.org> <m1iOnqN-0000EpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0NKeaTMQlQs1F8w5y-I4RlV7JkA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 22:52:20 -0000

>>> Note that we could change SLAAC to allow the lifetime of a prefix to be
>>> set to zero, instead of having to wait for 2 hours. That might be an
>>> improvement but requires careful analsysis.
>> 
>> Can you explain how operating a public service should work on this
>> type of network?
> 
> Could you be more specific what you consider a 'public service' and what
> you expect to break?

The (only) value (sic) of IPv6 to end-users is retoration of end to end connectivity at the network layer.

I challenge you to find in the "real world" of end-users many with much trust in the ad-based "you are the product" centralised services in the current Internet.
IPv6 was meant to allow end-users to run decentralized services.

- hidden primary DNS
- mail
- web
- home-automation
- video conferencing
- jabber

All of those have great open source software.
To use Owen's paragraph:
"I don’t know of a single server which operates that way currently. Can you point to a working example?"

Assuming all the moving parts required were updated to support flash renumbering (I have little proof they even support graceful renumbering), 
if the end-user cannot trust the lifetimes in the delegated prefix, DNS with TTL=1s is presumably the only choice?


> What I described is basically what happens on IPv4 when a CPE uses NAT 
> and gets a new IPv4 address from the ISP.

If making IPv6 no better than IPv4 + NAT, then stick with IPv4 + NAT.
IPv4 NAT scales very well as it turns out.

> Flash renumbering is far from ideal, but a reality on the current internet.
> Any application that is suitable for home use is expected to deal with that
> scenario.

We don't need IPv6 to maintain the status quo.

> Note that with automatic DNS updates, you can probably run a mail server (or
> your personal 'cloud') on such a link. But that is not a common use case
> at the moment.

And don't get me wrong, I'm all for making IPv6 addressing / onlink behaviour more robust.
But not justified in this way that can be seen to allow for practices that removes any benefit of IPv6 over IPv4/NAT.

Ole