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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 24 October 2019 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 757CD120840 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 Pv7D-MWBSWfF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 3FD15120072 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 06:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x9ODhRrv024252 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:43:27 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 990A3207ADC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:43:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92AD3207AD9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:43:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x9ODhRYF000492 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:43:27 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <m1iNIFE-0000IwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <d1b6855d-bde9-7b53-4809-0846bb9772e4@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2x7vudujw5t++obry56g=VNjQXXTHFK8pBPk0jmk78Bcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJoHkZ8pTjszP0vw4BjX0HUhmPa6wJONzdy2JEm5iqAfBUvjRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wCYi4KWTEz1hUSPVr9+hu8GaHRkPuvQQ2P00knvnPaaQ@mail.gmail.com> <848BA3B3-36B4-4C42-86D0-88759BC45D5A@employees.org> <A61279DA-4678-4A10-9117-6CA227AE2FA5@cisco.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4a6aa65f-bcfc-bc59-2789-9bec5c483a1a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:43:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A61279DA-4678-4A10-9117-6CA227AE2FA5@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/MDzotoBs00DATyk2_n2D-2E2q24>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
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, 24 Oct 2019 13:43:32 -0000


Le 24/10/2019 à 15:11, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) a écrit :
>  [...] "Unstable DHCP-PD prefix considered harmful" ?

Risks being shortened to an as harmful 'DHCP-PD considered harmful'.

Alex

> 
> -éric (enjoying my 3-year old /48 or is it 5 years?)
> 
> 
> On 24/10/2019, 12:47, "v6ops on behalf of Ole Troan" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
>      Mark,
>      
>      Right. Instant/flash renumbering is not supported in IP networks.
>      IPv6 does nothing to help with this, well, assuming a network hiding behind NAT, it makes it harder.
>      Apart from "does not work", what more can the IETF say or do here?
>      
>      Cheers,
>      Ole
>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>