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

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 31 October 2019 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 D917C12006B; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=HHPE8kcm; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=AbIB0jcy
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 M79TnD0w9yO6; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93ED12008B; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21130; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1572486513; x=1573696113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=HXTmAa2yzpO/iyBPdD8ZDxtUgTo+xfdiCz9XeO6tHgg=; b=HHPE8kcmPsG8eDxFdZxewBRltOqdS6fo0YfLajMS1uOi50E+7vnOYYeo qegR0c+63xr+aaDnZfuYVukD2sbAPu3WeIOYF+/MfioA4kModsvxvNswE Ud8fkmQkS8e8jP1FAjP4vPq2GJsQkObBD9M8Nz0fal3V/SmCBcJAaJDvL w=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AF9Df8BwhSvyp6i/XCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5YRGN/u1j2VnOW4iTq+lJjebbqejBYSQB+t7A+GsHbIQKUh?= =?us-ascii?q?YEjcsMmAl1HsmBG2XwLeXhaGoxG8ERHFI=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CwAAD+PLpd/4UNJK1lGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF9gRwvJCwFbFggBAsqCoQeg0YDinSCXpMKhGG?= =?us-ascii?q?CUgNUCQEBAQwBARgBCgoCAQGEQAIXg08kOBMCAwkBAQQBAQECAQUEbYU3DIV?= =?us-ascii?q?RAQEBAQMBARARChMBASwLAQ8CAQgRBAEBKAMCAgIlCxQJCAIEDgUIEwQDgwG?= =?us-ascii?q?BeU0DLgEOp1ACgTiIYHWBMoJ+AQEFgTQBg18YghcDBoE2jBEYgX+BV4FOfj6?= =?us-ascii?q?CYgEBgUsCBw8rCYJaMoIsjROCaoU8mDkKgiSVTII8lyOEV4YThRaYDgIEAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?FAg4BAQWBaSKBWHAVO4JsUBAUgwYMF4NQhRSFP3SBKIsGASSBCwEvXgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,249,1569283200"; d="scan'208,217";a="656069055"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 31 Oct 2019 01:48:32 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9V1mWqZ013616 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:48:32 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:48:31 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:48:31 -0500
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:48:31 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=INF7qH/yBtm50r2yEEmFXY9vYB6AMllaXz40ah8LvaqzwlUicbTQMV6AZK0+C1deDmfUohe0xihvpw3C4UMgsIoBIhlt6+vg710K23GrgqoGsDBBINN+5QOSVWGJPmAmcJC94vbQSl6SdeqeM7JnpJBwdmr662V9aeCG9ohLOCbYD7pkbUGhwrS848bLuw3sPegG7DsMghxxu/BGHjDvlbVWj4w5AJbR+1ER3IjJVdq5PwNXvjiV6Z8UP38UAsAGPhWfrRwsh6UABhUCCLOMC85osyLDYfZ5Zr9pOVSNjCYl5Mrp1idsfk13bzmhb0hCstuv9ioGssZeJ7Kk5/d/dw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HXTmAa2yzpO/iyBPdD8ZDxtUgTo+xfdiCz9XeO6tHgg=; b=noSYkApWWzUuOmYowV8aJukOXqxGrPd8sRE04BbCk3fFtp8g0JB8jqlSuw0txANaMbdG/D7iwGD/H4mNWq1z+U4i4qr6JHA5TL8lv8dMaiuiClCEpY1J4/1KE0TMmWZdoVrAvMA436cO7b2SF8sxTIHKcD9TRb1tCb5TMu5rywJBIcsmmcxPup2Zr00rQuVYNRsnkxpacBYRDV+Rnp8dDCjAOrGPMRFT5EZihotBvMkQVZ92so49qQH6OUh9V9YqvAV4yIj1v9cJA2b5pMxf0O6PIKJYHr/TtOKIbP2Uyud2Z3O+dvpwp7yET+lVf4cHGI2/Oyh5Q8hbZ6TtvLXPIw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HXTmAa2yzpO/iyBPdD8ZDxtUgTo+xfdiCz9XeO6tHgg=; b=AbIB0jcyaHFLKFm1Gs2bGOYzBoSUTa/7AcS7duf/kMmy6NbXUqVFtJeC6mMkuQlC/qTm3fUtdP08/9tp9qT6zWMQjCLY6nIT7JumTy3FUx25SSYUiWzdv5oQRv7nO3Nd33PwojSWqSNCI+OCpNXNQ5lF9wzqErpqkRaivH3vbic=
Received: from MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.97.139) by MWHPR1101MB2080.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.99.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2387.24; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:48:28 +0000
Received: from MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::808:4d44:a5d1:c7f6]) by MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::808:4d44:a5d1:c7f6%11]) with mapi id 15.20.2387.028; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:48:28 +0000
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
CC: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] [dhcwg] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
Thread-Index: AQHVj4wF2N9x2yVd00KuCcRTFHdPxadz+cYg
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:48:28 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR1101MB22883C9D6880B84F103F884DCF630@MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MWHPR1101MB2288616D545F3DAD1D1734A1CF600@MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOpJ=k06SRAHR7S+UmvFu=zvyk8j_uica2gdbBij+5pr+Jykww@mail.gmail.com> <C0A66DA1-29DE-456A-934D-7ECC07575336@cisco.com> <8755B40E-4075-4AAC-BF59-19B6DF9BA6D1@cisco.com> <B23EE439-1509-43FB-9813-F330117DBF42@fugue.com> <CAOpJ=k25ML8Z0_QRN8yoYdXut=tsZBwtBZEstceT45csb1Aunw@mail.gmail.com> <E8D9F8C2-C4C1-44CC-AB06-87A3461B704A@fugue.com> <A72A93B2-B947-4365-A811-50D8908B01EA@cisco.com> <F2F145F7-E678-48C9-A765-BD2D22F793EE@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F2F145F7-E678-48C9-A765-BD2D22F793EE@delong.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=volz@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.77]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 50584efa-482f-4ea6-c9e4-08d75da46d6e
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR1101MB2080:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR1101MB2080FC6380D842C168CEBC62CF630@MWHPR1101MB2080.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 02070414A1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(6116002)(7736002)(55016002)(14444005)(256004)(236005)(3846002)(229853002)(74316002)(9686003)(54896002)(6306002)(790700001)(71200400001)(71190400001)(66066001)(86362001)(2906002)(6436002)(4326008)(6916009)(25786009)(8936002)(5660300002)(8676002)(66946007)(81166006)(966005)(76116006)(606006)(33656002)(11346002)(52536014)(66476007)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(14454004)(6246003)(26005)(53546011)(102836004)(6506007)(186003)(81156014)(76176011)(316002)(486006)(7696005)(99286004)(54906003)(478600001)(446003)(476003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR1101MB2080; H:MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 2XH3ijdbzVm0aSmtKpvM9UCSIJlYvGH/gPkK6TfEZ13gcBpzFHiiWyP8e/hhAmf42SPf/WD353QqRda5I2Dhz7wH5Nm1goc/xR1A/wX7Ptrmm/w2ajUJy6cNKNL6zkun1osNLv/jyYoiaecOJZ3KWh6e5CutJeiFT5/n4TOxGXB6sT0Zj8HXA5Pc2Avx0OokMD/2kINy6v5HJHa+kIoLmN5bnJNsY0PPMwSGI3nY5QhJyooAA6X7elqRu4I/i8FqTlSSZ3g1/shD9NT/yeny6J5slJl8QSZ52skLQf+CTepdGtp7EI6FP3l8PM8V7L49OgR8cLZXNioszbCBeA3IsESSR4uyLM5YK00JmmlZhsyuVM/+tR8uaE86SoHeMEEumleydJdYD0Q29P01xz1tmpoN4II7LYx3Q31HnovVsit9+3au159njHxNsUd2Kk3S8f3fIYaJYlIUCTKugBAkp8hIpf+TEmvWae97NiWhxTs=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR1101MB22883C9D6880B84F103F884DCF630MWHPR1101MB2288_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 50584efa-482f-4ea6-c9e4-08d75da46d6e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Oct 2019 01:48:28.6162 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: eZpPpRlcQHIuMLXxgAKkLOqTVZ2ES/o2PTyQKUiqc7OqROCgLFQVDq3rJPscxTds
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR1101MB2080
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6sgHTxuVgIGt_r89x4bKvXo_UiY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] 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: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:48:37 -0000

Owen:

“The CPU should write the set of received prefixes and their expected expiration times (preferred, valid) to persistent storage. The CPU should update this when a packet making a change to these timers is received. It should make every effort to deprecate prefixes it cannot renew from the links where it previously advertised them.”

I fully agree with that. That is the best and most complete solution. No disagreement there.

I was just trying to come up with something that could help in cases where this was not reasonable.

Note that it is technically a bit more than just write to storage as a clock is also needed to know whether the prefix needs to be deprecated or not. Perhaps time can come from the network or the device can just deprecate regardless of time if the new prefix is different when it reboots?


  *   Bernie

From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 9:39 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>;
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>;; Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>;; dhcwg@ietf.org; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds




On Oct 30, 2019, at 5:53 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:

Mark Smith on v6ops ml wrote:

“I think Ole observed that this is contrary to what the PD prefix's Valid Lifetime said would be the case. The ISP supplied a PD Prefix with a Valid Lifetime of X seconds, and then broke that promise by abruptly changing addressing before X seconds. ISPs should be expected to live up to their Valid Lifetime promises.”

Sure, but in the real world, there is an entire class of ISPs that have repeatedly demonstrated utter and near complete disregard for such niceties as promises to customers (e.g. most major eyeball ISPs in the US at a minimum), so having CPE behavior that accommodates this fact in favor of the user will likely lead to a better user experience than stomping or feet and insisting that ISPs behave properly.


And it would be worth better understanding exactly what happens in these situations (perhaps it was covered earlier but I missed or lost that)  ... if the Prefix configuration really is radically changed, even the SP dhcp server may be unable to assist.

With what is being proposed, the SP DHCP server doesn’t need to assist. The CPU should write the set of received prefixes and their expected expiration times (preferred, valid) to persistent storage. The CPU should update this when a packet making a change to these timers is received. It should make every effort to deprecate prefixes it cannot renew from the links where it previously advertised them.

This doesn’t require anything special on the SP side.

Owen



- Bernie

On Oct 30, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com<mailto:mellon@fugue.com>> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2019, at 7:18 PM, Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com<mailto:budm@weird-solutions.com>> wrote:
It's not so much about the lifetime of the prefix as about putting two
prefixes in a reply to a request, right? And any CPE that can't handle
that gracefully gets hosed. I agree that providers of course need to
test this feature, and a server side configuration makes that
possible. Also, I'm all for firmware upgrades, but requiring it to fix
a hosed CPE is could be a big issue.

The thing is, if they can’t handle a two-PD response, they are out of spec.  This is already allowed in the RFC.

Granted, there may be plenty of CPEs that won’t handle this correctly.   If they can be bricked by a message with two PDs, then bricking them is the right thing to do, because that’s a zero-day vulnerability wide open on the customer network.

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops