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

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 30 October 2019 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07AAD1200C1 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lAYpk5RTfpLK for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 15:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8A80120018 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 15:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 15so4704784qkh.6 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 15:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=i/rXSzfzJxCJp/9K58VstvQ5w1XNieCx/NFJ/fHZhgs=; b=e9LD0riRSlu+UvWyg8q2IWIzHCKiGL4FjEBIBchoqKR0y0XxpzxLAnJenL7GImCG4F sxoHeK1mq9eh5gRKOHipipgGXDUFDzxn2f2G2cgDExLnhH6b3OtunTRt7QFHvKiLNmwJ UYquBPK17U6/ShJ3zw0IDoEt3Z/Tlu4LDOGWvynm7Eg7dqA+gp5VRdPsMSIAlGL6NThl iBqnC5B5hNBTS+wTYAaqqSUoVUbAVVDEMALzeAluCsTNGtl4CG2/IhX8Pz2PdASx6/AV FOyXy2gqTHYTIUOL/jAuPby+n1/91HEeeY4abGmrI8o7BpIQ/oyTv7K0+FZUNSoD1lHp UaEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=i/rXSzfzJxCJp/9K58VstvQ5w1XNieCx/NFJ/fHZhgs=; b=MJxNlrVpBh1IumOI5hwjgvWgJKw58AqQi1QtIK1l5GEVzo6V8YRRdzFHCcUsdiAyhK BZeagOBWyfwCqNhwpfU74OZQhCDts+TAiow5PsjSSl3gRonkIqa32SSOWrtn6L32ne39 08jp8naK2a75a/46mw07jdtnREjgMuEto5qlHxQzHPZxMhO5JBjYntVMgnCcQbsryKjm xyHuiHT9IMcAk7UqL0tRYBtFZPGYAOdpRn2xzJZ9+iWLujoR/HNr6wG+18No1+GGlWon RwDtZqKZiTE3QaGxAMtYT0UKb48rq/n0c8S/ieoerTv1mp6R3zI/WdjLR87My5/Eu/qY tDlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWh9dIggevdZ560QNgg3fCq3plQyUmRJscY322Clp0JZBglNmr+ 3dODpXoLpbb2zFID6gK791qO/w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwdxOHD75G2ToIEqoC9E4JUngtaNYuCRWaYjrig/h4VEKcipuoiwv/+AvrY5ST9jN922H8kmQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:5e4:: with SMTP id z4mr1890868qkg.310.1572475399843; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 15:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:c5ad:3e58:9e29:c076? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:c5ad:3e58:9e29:c076]) by with ESMTPSA id o3sm1277891qta.3.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 15:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:43:17 -0400
Cc: Bud Millwood <>, "" <>, IPv6 Operations <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] 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: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:43:23 -0000

On Oct 30, 2019, at 6:23 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <> wrote:
> I should point out that having the dhcp server supply this information may not work all the time. It really depends on what configuration changes were made and the server implementation. And of course is useless if you “move” the CPE.

In this case the prefix would presumably no longer be valid; if it was valid and was offered as a deprecated prefix, it would cause no harm.

I am not suggesting that this should just start happening with no testing.   What I am suggesting is that forcing firmware updates on CPE routers isn’t something we should be as chary of as we used to be.