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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 31 January 2019 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 2878D129508; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 06:23:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 GbTb0PXDaz93; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 06:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 26FF2128CB7; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 06:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 84ECDB2; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:23:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1548944580; bh=TDng/gPt1J5g8yZez6R2gQL50JX4Zr2fphGTyICCuI4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=h8UpKxxqE2TW5JkJtYzxmBkEqZe47O84HGUitIjDdBtM7gQsUIAChfHbxDvH9f17i K58u/4RsI3MUIzDaooVwa5X9kKiGZlLa3T3cuozFIp0tahUNeJbTgIBFUJ1WVANtBr blJK6o1EZwQpYzcfTr+dSo3DbqG2vVAM053cmCJs=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BAEB0; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:23:00 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:23:00 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHL_VyAji4RKJmgxpYBgaMAoQn=Ey2BrgFrkvcesYZHLSncpnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901311522080.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <7b77cbfe-2bee-fda0-9751-44f9fb95a553@forthnet.gr> <76ea7b13-888c-a978-9fd7-cc8387169215@si6networks.com> <CAHL_VyAji4RKJmgxpYBgaMAoQn=Ey2BrgFrkvcesYZHLSncpnw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/LOjMWDvTPNdoiCNk9ZYXty0zal0>
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 14:23:06 -0000

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Richard Patterson wrote:

> I think this requirement already resolves the CPE-side of things, and
> the rest I believe, is solved server-side?
> If the CPE is hard rebooted, it hasn't sent a Release, so I'd expect
> the lease-state to be kept server-side, and re-offered if the DUID+MAC
> binding is the same when the CPE reconnects.
>
> Although, during soft reboots, I have often seen CPEs sending a
> Release, telling the servers to relinquish the lease.  Perhaps we
> should discuss the benefits/detriments of doing this?

This is a good point. On our HGWs we disabled ever sending release just to 
try to always give the same prefix to the customer.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se