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

Fernando Gont <> Fri, 25 October 2019 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEA5120832 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwJ0NDY1Kasu for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD90D120132 for <>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2804:431:c7f3:bff2:b8b3:4400:3123:ecb7] (unknown [IPv6:2804:431:c7f3:bff2:b8b3:4400:3123:ecb7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F04C28613B; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 19:52:38 +0200 (CEST)
To: Philip Homburg <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:49:17 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:52:43 -0000

On 25/10/19 05:42, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> I fully agree with your assessment. That said, maybe the first step is
>> to start with a problem statement, as with this document?
> The current draft is not a problem statement. From Section 3 it describes
> potential solutions.

It does contain a problem statement. And I think it would be nice if the
problem statement could highlight, at a high-level, the possible ways to
address the problem. The current document does elaborate quite a bit on
some of them. Such parts could be removed and put into a separate
document, though.

> I'm not sure a separate problem statement is needed. The relevant
> documents can start with a description of what is happening today.
> In perfect world, bad things do not happen, but we don't live in a 
> perfect world. Most customers don't have the luxury position to change ISPs
> just because their ISP does flash renumbering.

Exactly. THe original draft had *everything* in the document, including
protocol updates. THis one has limited to the problem statement plus
operational mitigations. Maybe the text that gets too specific (.e.g the
CPE behavior could be removed and made into a stand alone document).


Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492