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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sun, 27 October 2019 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 F2A6F120086 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 09:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 SxPD2O2o8gO3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 09:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2D32120072 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 09:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.125.79.39] (unknown [191.241.228.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6B14868E0; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 17:29:55 +0100 (CET)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <m1iNIFE-0000IwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <d1b6855d-bde9-7b53-4809-0846bb9772e4@si6networks.com> <7C913CC2-938F-449C-9750-85C36EC05E38@delong.com> <48c864c7-589d-23cf-417e-6f4ec012a76a@si6networks.com> <7C142F1F-04C6-48A2-A65A-7CADD3691ECF@delong.com> <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <fdf500a5-fdd0-4ae7-e2e1-cfe9b8c0c24e@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 13:29:32 -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: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8H9qIw9XBJK0ig1TRTgjDMERuMU>
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 16:30:02 -0000

On 27/10/19 04:57, Mark Smith wrote:
> So in summary, the proposal is to update RFCs, change 100s of millions
> of CPE implementations, and billions of IPv6 host implementations, to
> accommodate some ISPs who want to cling to an obsolete dynamic and
> dial up origin address provisioning model for always on Internet
> connections?

Once more: the CPE router case is just *one of many* scenarios that may
lead to the problem described in the document.

The discussion about CPEs has to do with the CPEs doing what is right --
regardless of whether the ISP renumbers or not.

Robustness has a lot to do with being able to gracefully handle the case
when others screw up.


> Robustness is useful, however there needs to be a determined threshold
> where, beyond that, the cost of adding robustness exceeds the cost of
> properly fixing the problem that created the need for additional
> robustness in the first place.

Could you please point at any specific part of the document that you
object to?



> Making all CPE and all IPv6 hosts more robust to work around a problem

What we describe is what CPEs should be doing to respect the protocol
semantics.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492