IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Fri, 18 September 2020 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 7634C3A0DFF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:47:50 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 4sh1M0Q_6E46 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 07CA93A0D44 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml728-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id AFC43D867E90EC6569BA; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:47:46 +0100 (IST)
Received: from msceml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.145) by lhreml728-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:47:46 +0100
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 22:47:45 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 22:47:45 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
CC: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
Thread-Index: AdaLlIyewLCjExjqRk+nNQVH29wmCwAzUPGAABOUmgAAGqqFAAAbuXfAAAxRMoAADNTJAP//1BmA///IPEA=
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:47:45 +0000
Message-ID: <93e01391b78b4c19be87f58f68281cbf@huawei.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <EB3611C3-8849-4670-AFAD-4924AC79E26A@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.201.149]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_93e01391b78b4c19be87f58f68281cbfhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IfhpvT1APXzfoJIIdfPFsZ9-W-c>
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: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:47:56 -0000

From standard point of view
local traffic should not stop after CPE would lose uplink,
Because internal CPE switch should still switch traffic
After internal CPE router would stop promoting itself a router for this link

From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]
Sent: 18 сентября 2020 г. 22:26
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
Cc: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

On Sep 18, 2020, at 3:21 PM, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com<mailto:vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>> wrote:
Some traffic could be local inside the apartment (TV from Server/NAS),
But definitely bigger proportion of traffic is going from real Internet.
It is additional burden to have ULA for local and GUA for wild Internet.
I do not see ULA usefulness without NAT.

The usefulness is for supporting the traffic within the home, which you admit exists (and can actually be substantial). This has to work. Having it fail because the uplink went away is not acceptable. There’s no meaningful cost to having a ULA, so this is just an obvious thing to do. FWIW, the commercial home router setup I have (an Eero mesh) advertises a ULA even if there is no IPv6 service to the global internet, so apparently I’m not alone in thinking that ULAs are useful.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email