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

Fernando Gont <> Fri, 01 November 2019 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1656F120121 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 01:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.307
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VJGS13s0VtWd for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F1DD12010E for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 01:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4EE88690D; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:15:56 +0100 (CET)
To: Ole Troan <>, Ted Lemon <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 01:21:57 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 08:16:01 -0000

On 30/10/19 11:07, Ole Troan wrote:
> Ted,
>>> We check both, the handling of the IA_PD and the error message.
>> And to be clear, you mean that if the CPE asks for a prefix delegation and doesn’t get the prefix it previously had, it deprecates it as described in L-14?  When this deprecation happens, what ways are being tested for it to happen?
>> E.g., is it the case that the client sends an IA PD containing an IA Prefix option, is the server returning the IA Prefix option containing the same prefix, with a status code encapsulated in it?   What status code?   Or is it returning an IA Prefix option with a different prefix?   Or is it doing both?
> You are thinking about this wrong.
> The simple implementation of uRPF/BCP38 is: on LAN ingress to do a lookup in the FIB of the SA, if the resulting adjacency/interface matches the ingress interface allow packet otherwise drop packet and send ICMP message. This behaviour is required regardless of renumbering or not.
> The ISP is required to do this on their ingress interfaces too.

You mean required as in "MUST"? If so, where?

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492