[v6ops] Re: Dynamic addresses

[Daryll Swer <[e-mail]>]

David

All addresses are dynamic; they will change. It is a question of over what
> period and of whom or what triggers that change. Or, looking at it from
> another angle, addresses are never permanent; they will eventually change.
>

I mean, you aren't wrong here. Of course. The point is, changing every few
hours/day makes no sense.

This is the key point you highlighted:

> paying someone to prevent a disruption intentionally caused by them is
> considered extortion.


But still, “change” for static v4 addresses is rare, typically, when you
pay a residential broadband provider for a v4 static, it stays static for
years (10+ years even) no problem. But yet, with abundance of IPv6, I can
barely get it to stay static for 5 hours on MOST residential ISPs. Very few
ISPs are BCOP-690 compliant.

 mDNS provides more than just the link-local addresses. Various DNS-SD
> proxies enable mDNS to operate beyond a single link.

As far as I know, they achieve this with non-RFC compliant behaviour (Cisco
Meraki has a similar approach, as well IIRC), but I could be wrong.
Inter-VLAN mDNS is an issue that I actually wanted to look into, perhaps,
we can discuss this off-channel, if you are interested David.

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://mailtrack.io/l/7d56da72f88c56d06e02d2206c5d463dbb035e01?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=feef939ce7f3a16e>


On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 19:52, David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 04:53 Daryll Swer <contact=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Gert Doering
>>
>> There some good arguments for dynamic prefixes
>>>
>> No there isn't.
>>
>
> All addresses are dynamic; they will change. It is a question of over what
> period and of whom or what triggers that change. Or, looking at it from
> another angle, addresses are never permanent; they will eventually change.
>
> people should stop putting explicit IPv6 addresses into places (which will
>>> inevitably cause headaches when changing ISP)
>>
>> NPTv6 to the rescue for non-renumbering across static ISP PDs that
>> changes when ISP *itself* is changed (rather than prefix within the same
>> ISP). I'm pretty confident people do not change ISPs per 6 hours or per 24
>> hours etc, as is the case with the lease time on the dynamic prefixes to
>> begin with.
>>
>
> Yes, reasonable periods of stability are necessary for both addresses and
> prefixes. All changes should be coordinated with the users or scheduled to
> occur when they cause as little disruption as possible.
>
> So actually having better support for automatic DNS registration/discovery
>>> (mDNS and friends) and just making SoHo networks renumber automatically and
>>> properly is a worthwile goal.
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you mean, mDNS and friends, does not care about changing
>> GUA or ULA prefixes, it operates on link-local addressing and does not work
>> inter-VLAN anyway (without hacking using mDNS Repeaters/Proxies because
>> link-local) — maybe I missed something here.
>>
>
> mDNS provides more than just the link-local addresses. Various DNS-SD
> proxies enable mDNS to operate beyond a single link.
>
> I do agree that those 0.001% of people that SSH into their home
>>> servers will hate SSHs dying on a renumbering event
>>
>>
>> Are you a gamer, Gert? Because many end-users are (myself included), and
>> if the games they play use IPv6 and works P2P native (we intend to have
>> IPv6 for every layer 7 application, I hope), RIP (literally) to the player,
>> when the genius ISPs flip the prefix on a live-session — same impact as the
>> SSH example.
>>
>> Do we really need to create a list of everyday applications (beyond the
>> so called 0.001% SSH users) that'd be impacted by
>> dynamic/ever-changing 24/7 prefixes? I'm sure you got the point.
>>
>
> Again, addresses and prefixes are not permanent; they inevitably change
> for one reason or another. They should not be changed haphazardly or too
> frequently, and these modifications should occur smoothly, aiming to
> minimize disruption, usually with some overlap between the old and new
> addresses or prefixes.
>
> However, the idea that addresses should not change is IPv4-centric
> thinking. IPv6 was architected with the idea that addresses are meant to be
> changed with minimal disruption. What is unacceptable is ISPs deliberately
> disrupting addresses or prefixes to differentiate service tiers; paying
> someone to prevent a disruption intentionally caused by them is considered
> extortion.
>
> Thanks
>