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

Ole Troan <> Mon, 28 October 2019 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD7012082A for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tWffGWq9kENf for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E710C12081B for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:a8cf:1b3:67ae:5263]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91B864E1294B; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:10:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0774E20443E7; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:10:54 +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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:10:53 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Philip Homburg <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:11:08 -0000


>> No, the question is if there is any host stack + server software
>> that deals with flash renumbering deployed.  And that is deployable
>> without coding.
> Flash renumbering is by and large not a server problem. If a request
> reaches the server, then the server typically can reply. Any flow that
> spans the renumbering event will be affected, but there are lots of 
> other issues that also affect established flows.
> If you renumber the network that contains mail servers, web servers,
> xmpp servers, etc., then the servers don't really notice.
> Of course, a renumbering event requires DNS to be updated, possibly changes
> to firewalls, etc. But that is no different from a proper renumbering event.

And this is something you have tested and verified works?
For a set of typical open source packages?
See Bjørn's message as well.
And try to see what happens when you do this for a hidden primary DNS server...

The world just isn't ready for flash renumbering of networks, likely not graceful renumbering either.
There are not many sensible responses the end-users can come up with to a service provider with a network behaving this way, apart from isolating addressing. Aka NAT.