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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 8EDDD1208C6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:34:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 NkdsQaC54sNR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 802BF120850 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xA48YkbC024950; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:34:46 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C8C492034C1; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:34:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD67A203495; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:34:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xA48Yk8E024832; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:34:46 +0100
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <B53CE471-C6E8-4DC1-8A72-C6E23154544F@fugue.com> <325e84aa-1703-e1ce-55a6-8790ceb7aff0@si6networks.com> <4C6471D4-0F5B-49EE-A38A-22AB2B87DA7E@fugue.com> <CE3BC775-8B50-43E6-8145-3CAB60F6AB4E@delong.com> <ED3EB4A2-30AE-4A1F-82C2-38E9D3A47AC1@fugue.com> <FAED1B1E-43D1-4C00-8EDE-CBDA01B0EBFE@employees.org> <166A84EB-3F53-43D2-86AD-C1233DA45399@fugue.com> <5E77C00A-B390-4CC5-B6F5-EB3B0177AA33@employees.org>
Cc: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <dmudric@avaya.com>, Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65ad969c-ac48-e059-f471-58fba3c20510@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:34:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5E77C00A-B390-4CC5-B6F5-EB3B0177AA33@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3MsRy9ycGhl9kYjzvagVGEEocks>
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:34:57 -0000


Le 01/11/2019 à 14:51, Ole Troan a écrit :
> Hi Ted,
> 
>>> At the risk of straying off topic. There is no mechanism for permissionless networking in IPv6.
>>> (which I think is a big gap)
>>
>> Do you mean permissionless advertising of routes to new networks?   If so, I agree.   It can be made to sort of work for limited cases, but there’s no standardized way to make end-to-end connectivity work between all networks using the various bits of protocol and practice that we have at present.
> 
> I would define it as:
> "Permission-less extensions of the network with new links (and by implications new routers) are not supported."

This is a problem statement.  It must be put in a draft.

There is a related problem statement about the IID being 64bit length, 
and the SLAAC on Ethernet running only on that.

They could be associated.

Alex

> 
> NPT66/NAT66 is the only alternative (talking network layer here).
> 
> If we have permission then:
>   - normal managed network. Just add new router and run routing protocol. Manually managed addressing
>   - HNCP (automated addressing and routing)
>   - hierarchical DHCP PD (only works in single rooted DAG)
>   - proxy ND (RFC recommending against)
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>