IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 6204bis and WAN disappearing

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Wed, 22 February 2012 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 ED75021E8026 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:01:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cEYQSKqhPnag for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:01:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAC5821E8028 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:01:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1329937269!16894903!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 22467 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2012 19:01:09 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Feb 2012 19:01:09 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1MIxZjq011794; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:59:37 -0500
Received: from sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (sflint03.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.230]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1MIxT4c011592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:59:29 -0500
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com (gaalpa1msghub9e.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.36.91]) by sflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:00:42 -0500
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.6.249]) by GAALPA1MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.36.91]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:00:42 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] 6204bis and WAN disappearing
Thread-Index: Aczw84ECxzzuwPVYQ0aM/GWBoA4FXQAcfMqAAADK0NAACxYSAAACJwsAAAMsj4AAANXVAAAAtJsAAAd7FHA=
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:00:41 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6110424C7@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <CB6A5688.11F1C%jason.weil@twcable.com> <A2AF4739-4868-4538-B743-936E6E918F8A@nominum.com> <0655863C-0DA5-4FC5-9E76-38D5B11883DF@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <0655863C-0DA5-4FC5-9E76-38D5B11883DF@laposte.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [90.164.202.123]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-RSA-Action: allow
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 6204bis and WAN disappearing
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:01:12 -0000

> > The reason it isn't correct is that a GUA, used beyond its valid
> lifetime, has the potential to be immediately invalidated when the WAN
> reappears.

A GUA has the potential to be immediately invalidated when the WAN re-appears, no matter what its valid lifetime is.

Consider the following real-life scenario:
IPv6 connection is via 6rd.
IPv4 address changes every time the IPv4 connection goes down and then up, no matter what the lease was on the original IPv4 address. This happens a lot in the IPv4 world.
IPv6 is down when IPv4 is down.
IPv6 prefix is based on the IPv4 address, so it will change every time the IPv4 address changes.
So the original IPv6 prefix may no longer be useful for Internet connectivity, even if it has time left on the original "valid" timer.

If sudden GUA address/prefix changes are a problem, then I think it would be best to consider this independent of whether or not GUAs are used beyond their valid lifetimes, when the WAN is down. I don't think that such use makes the problem any worse.

Barbara

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email