IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

otroan@employees.org Thu, 24 September 2020 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 117663A0A3E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 t34psL1xZ_Zx for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9864B3A0A35 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 06:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2121:2c0:5d57:6561:b902:4539:3e2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBB844E11B4C; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 13:05:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFED3E77423; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:05:20 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <413ACF56-751E-4510-96C7-2B9491507C3B@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:05:20 +0200
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <22BC0C68-65DC-47BC-8C05-F12EF9B8B26B@employees.org>
References: <8f964b8650cd4b619ff47aed5b07bc67@huawei.com> <7ef6cbcc-164f-383c-658b-b3c0df859535@go6.si> <1af87e24-1410-8f89-b50d-9c61694e4644@foobar.org> <f97b7ac2-0b36-2fae-58fd-eddee6f8b408@gmail.com> <76f10fa7030044c4a0b71443fde92f24@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyC7u7bNJD9pUzbFTrBtifbCVmQtPn4YHHs5g7T6omKwLQ@mail.gmail.com> <2e11a0315196499c81b72c171e014650@huawei.com> <EB3611C3-8849-4670-AFAD-4924AC79E26A@fugue.com> <93e01391b78b4c19be87f58f68281cbf@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDhUO9mMTXEB1Z53-sA4KtHMu4-vdB0zb-oukanmEdARw@mail.gmail.com> <5b2f71a95a7944f0bcda368c11c6d7a2@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDP-w9LzQTCkQM-tyjVo+T982aazFJTWeNPvGqHSHRtgQ@mail.gmail.com> <6f5fabd632fb4954adc13ea805be3c0b@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDO_DTtE2Uj-T2f=a4wdJ2QtNrtO8YwMS88rZtcit5MrQ@mail.gmail.com> <b18832ca2efb44d59d2186863f56481b@huawei.com> <m1kKgil-0000LLC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <7080ee174bdc4ddbb800778f4707d442@huawei.com> <m1kKipE-0000IgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <f43b44fceb114ceeafa75a48f360aaec@huawei.com> <m1kL3i9-0000IuC@stereo. hq.phicoh.net> <D3C32A83-5DCC-4BE9-93AE-C129ACB27449@employees.org> <m1kL4tV-0000KeC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <96911F6E-B380-46CB-B165-2AFDEB4D9A87@employees.org> <m1kL5Kk-0000FXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <01CA8512-1866-4909-8490-B28377E66C00@employees.org> <m1kLQMD-0000IfC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <413ACF56-751E-4510-96C7-2B9491507C3B@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/F11iokKd5a3yOZrSQ9gluDb5P2Q>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
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, 24 Sep 2020 13:05:32 -0000

>> I'm saying that it not clear what effect a loop will have on DHCP PD.
> 
> We studied this. I don’t think there’s a risk of a loop. The problem is that routing might be pessimal, and the system is not resilient in the face of unplug/replug events. If we assume that PD and relays set up routes, we’re going to always have routes that lead to the top of the tree. If a router has multiple links, it will only ever route packets northward, or to links to which it is directly connected. This is not ideal, and doesn’t work for every topology, but I don’t think it forms loops. You can’t use RAs to advertise routes to non-adjacent links.

What use of DHCP PD are you referring to here?
DHCP PD is only defined to work across administrative boundaries.
"Hierarchical DHCP PD"?

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email