IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 25 October 2019 10:56 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 4C65B120855 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 03:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
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 nRxZ10l28kOP for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 03:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 7AC8E120851 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 03:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x9PAuZ8J005381 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:56:35 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DB57D205AA4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:56:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C25205A1B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:56:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x9PAuZV2015415 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:56:35 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <m1iNIFE-0000IwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <d1b6855d-bde9-7b53-4809-0846bb9772e4@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2x7vudujw5t++obry56g=VNjQXXTHFK8pBPk0jmk78Bcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJoHkZ8pTjszP0vw4BjX0HUhmPa6wJONzdy2JEm5iqAfBUvjRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wCYi4KWTEz1hUSPVr9+hu8GaHRkPuvQQ2P00knvnPaaQ@mail.gmail.com> <848BA3B3-36B4-4C42-86D0-88759BC45D5A@employees.org> <A61279DA-4678-4A10-9117-6CA227AE2FA5@cisco.com> <4a6aa65f-bcfc-bc59-2789-9bec5c483a1a@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xB9V3FN8a4WF2p8dxJyY5r+AHC80+spMOBQDVW9a7fCw@mail.gmail.com> <c19a2eb7-821f-1df7-b555-ebf066b0a063@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <df2ccfdd-5a71-cbbe-cad5-ccaa61dfb421@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:56:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c19a2eb7-821f-1df7-b555-ebf066b0a063@gmail.com>
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/8kDnAzVgK7x2TLV6AhFuIz2kS-k>
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:56:44 -0000

As usual, I think one wants to make sure about which link layer does one 
talk in the Problem Statement and Operational workarounds.

It might very well be that this DHCPv6-PD usefulness pertains to certain 
links (optical, in this case) and not in others (ADSL, or 4G).

This relates directly to many ISPs.

Alex


Le 25/10/2019 à 12:53, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 24/10/2019 à 23:47, Mark Smith a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, 00:43 Alexandre Petrescu, 
>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     Le 24/10/2019 à 15:11, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) a écrit :
>>      >  [...] "Unstable DHCP-PD prefix considered harmful" ?
>>
>>     Risks being shortened to an as harmful 'DHCP-PD considered harmful'.
>>
>>
>> If you're going to suggest that, you better say why.
> 
> BEcause people take DHCPv6 for DHCPv4.
> 
> I'd rather say:
> 
> 'linux lack of a light kernel built-in DHCPv6 client is considered
>   harmful'
> 'sticked addresses on interfaces after prefix expiration is considered
>   harmful'
> 'lack of DHCPv6-delegated prefix presence in RA is considered
>   harmful'
> ...
> 
>> DHCPv6-PD has facilitated residential IPv6 deployment. There would 
>> have been no practical way to do it otherwise.
> 
> Probably DHCPv6-PD has facilitated residential IPv6 deployment.  I will
> not argue about the practicability of other ways, but while my ISP
> (Free) delivers /56s w/o DHCPv6-PD since many years (supposedly w/
> '6rd') it also engaged on a migration path to 'native IPv6' since 2017,
> that I do not really understand whether or not it uses DHCPv6-PD.
> 
> Alex
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>     Alex
>>
>>      >
>>      > -éric (enjoying my 3-year old /48 or is it 5 years?)
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > On 24/10/2019, 12:47, "v6ops on behalf of Ole Troan"
>>     <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of
>>     otroan@employees.org <mailto:otroan@employees.org>> wrote:
>>      >
>>      >      Mark,
>>      >
>>      >      Right. Instant/flash renumbering is not supported in IP
>>     networks.
>>      >      IPv6 does nothing to help with this, well, assuming a
>>     network hiding behind NAT, it makes it harder.
>>      >      Apart from "does not work", what more can the IETF say or do
>>     here?
>>      >
>>      >      Cheers,
>>      >      Ole
>>      >
>>      >
>>      > _______________________________________________
>>      > v6ops mailing list
>>      > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>      >
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     v6ops mailing list
>>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email