Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 21 February 2019 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 98CD3130EA0; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:44:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 lQTXJy56xeIm; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 C5233130E8B; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B3B03AB043; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:44:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA07E160050; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:44:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DD9160073; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:44:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id re0Drz9UhfyW; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:44:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.67] (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CB90160050; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:44:47 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xiB+7c7_0SGJJ4fTqrt_z+eu29_dGLXzrbt-79JZphYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:44:45 +1100
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C0C2A8FE-3863-4BFC-8233-D9672DEE5515@isc.org>
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <B6E2EC33-EEAF-40D0-AFCC-BDAFA9134ACD@consulintel.es> <20190220113603.GK71606@Space.Net> <28fbc2c305c640c9afb3704050f6e8d7@boeing.com> <20190220213107.GS71606@Space.Net> <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr0HBG+rhyFWg9zh0t3mW486Mjx9umjn+CRqAZg4z9r0dg@mail.gmail.com> <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190221215302.GU71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xiB+7c7_0SGJJ4fTqrt_z+eu29_dGLXzrbt-79JZphYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/B2X2mcicTT6ssCVMZOoTzXqcGlY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
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, 21 Feb 2019 23:44:53 -0000


> On 22 Feb 2019, at 10:21 am, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 08:53, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 08:40:24AM +1100, Mark Smith wrote:
>>>> Applications today seem to be all "HTTP(S)" or "QUIC", and they all had to
>>>> learn how to deal with NAPT.  New protocols that embed IP addresses are
>>>> killed by IPv4 NAPT anyway, so that ship has sailed -
>>> 
>>> Getting it back in IPv6 is one of the things I hope we can get.
>>> 
>>> That's because applications that would be best performing, most robust and
>>> more secure with a peer-to-peer communications model are forced to adopt an
>>> absolute client-server model (where the server is a much more likely
>>> performance bottleneck, the server becomes a SPOF for all clients using it
>>> at the time, and the server is a natural interception point for a malicious
>>> server operator).
>> 
>> Have you looked out there recently?  None of the big actors in the market
>> seem to have any particular interest in moving away from a "we are the cloud
>> content players, you are just visiting clients" model.
>> 
> 
> Generally it's in their business interests not to.
> 
> However, just like everybody else, they don't have a choice anyway,
> even if they wanted to with IPv4 because of NAT.
> 
> Still, there are lots of little actors, and a peer-to-peer model can
> allow them to scale their application without having to spend massive
> amounts on server infrastructure (physical or virtual.)
> 
>> (The gaming industry has, to some extent, but that doesn't seem to be
>> a really strong driver)
>> 
> 
> Something significant happened in that regard recently.
> 
> "IPv6 on Xbox One"
> https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/networking/ipv6-on-xbox-one
> 
> "And—most useful for Xbox—the expansion removes the need for Network
> Address Translation (NAT), which can interfere with multiplayer gaming
> and chat over IPv4 networks."
> 
> "..., for the best possible experience, we recommend enabling IPv6 on
> your network."
> 
>> [..]
>>> Another analogy to show the significance is that with NAT in the telephone
>>> network, it wouldn't be possible for me to give you this phone's number to
>>> call me. Would any of us accept that constraint on the usability of our
>>> phones?
>> 
>> When did you do the last phone call on your mobile tablet-like computer
>> thingie?
> 
> Sunday (and I need to get back to my Uncle since). Previous weeks a
> number of them organising a trip and updating expired credit card
> number details.
> 
> I'll observe that you've still got your phone number in your email
> signature below, so being able to convey your globally unique phone
> number and receive calls to it isn't yet obsolete.

Actually he doesn’t.  He has something that approximates a globally
unique phone number.  The (0) should not be there.  There is a standard
for writing phone numbers that start with + and it isn’t being used.

> Regards,
> Mark.
> 
>> 
>> Gert Doering
>>        -- NetMaster
>> --
>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>> 
>> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org