IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 31 January 2019 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 F32B6130F25 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:04:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 Ii-Z0QS_12jq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:04:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 69451130F1C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:04:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EC04B; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:04:02 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1548968639; bh=tmTdnD79dGajoIipjSk VmQlZSXWd7bRD8KVOAmDiRJY=; b=Qls65e2VZZD5xZPE8R+hpoGuEE06VBOH1nG QmhyU53Wfaj1IMVhNSDirqSZ/aE+Y29owHuD/3ioe4AoPYzOr+osOdmfoe14y3/A +cd9xeveY2nFVOBNqF9AjgyXZ5eii2cuLRwJVwBVJr1FzZD0Xo/JFojHL6dWgmk1 cuYgyPbU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id KpXanXQqRm5W; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:03:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80::10] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80::10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D7734A; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:03:59 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <EDE056B7-64E0-4336-BC03-774B4D21FF3F@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_03EB80B8-64DE-410E-B6A9-90C9D6523866"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:03:58 +0100
In-Reply-To: <C9047330-38AE-4146-ABB2-47B2821DA96C@steffann.nl>
Cc: Tarko Tikan <tarko@lanparty.ee>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <7b77cbfe-2bee-fda0-9751-44f9fb95a553@forthnet.gr> <d9eeb2b7-588b-0ce0-00a7-354960d94400@lanparty.ee> <m1gpFLa-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9da736fc-032f-1466-f90f-5d346e73a1aa@lanparty.ee> <cc9fb413-4622-cb4f-6274-38566f6a2a22@si6networks.com> <C9047330-38AE-4146-ABB2-47B2821DA96C@steffann.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IsLuQs4Rb3p47aIgrfRelKrWwQ4>
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, 31 Jan 2019 21:04:05 -0000

> We should stop making excuses for badly behaved CPEs, they are crappy enough already and I'd really like to work towards tiger standards. That said: more robust hosts are also a good thing :)

Although tigers are nice, in this case I would still prefer "higher" :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email