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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 78A511200C5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 YHRtIGpa_VFS for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C77FC12006D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.36] (unknown [177.27.208.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC83186699; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 04:31:27 +0100 (CET)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <B53CE471-C6E8-4DC1-8A72-C6E23154544F@fugue.com> <325e84aa-1703-e1ce-55a6-8790ceb7aff0@si6networks.com> <4C6471D4-0F5B-49EE-A38A-22AB2B87DA7E@fugue.com> <CAO42Z2w5kDSMXCUTM3nQNO_Jhm0ShTo9OW_njLsno7Dhk7LLdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <abbf9cae-5ed1-add6-a963-83edf671b5aa@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 00:18:40 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2w5kDSMXCUTM3nQNO_Jhm0ShTo9OW_njLsno7Dhk7LLdw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VJDgl7r4MTiDT6EX8RCcv6LDgaE>
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 03:31:33 -0000

On 31/10/19 21:20, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 06:34 Ted Lemon, <mellon@fugue.com
> <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Oct 31, 2019, at 3:21 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
>     <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
>>     On 27/10/19 09:02, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>>     Indeed, this would also not actually solve the problem.   At present,
>>>     the ISPs are doing something that is out of spec and causes problems.
>>>     If we “fix” this by accommodating what they do, does that help, or
>>>     does it just encourage them to continue doing it?
>>
>>     Did happy eyeballs encourage broken IPv6 connectivity, or did it
>>     actually help IPv6 deployment?
> 
>     Don’t get me wrong—I’m not saying we shouldn’t do things to improve
>     the situation.   I am saying that we should be strategic about it.
> 
>>>     What should be happening on the host with a prefix that’s deprecated
>>>     is that TCP connections should be timing out.   This doesn’t take
>>>     very long.  
>>
>>     ~9 minutes, IIRC.
> 
>     Should be 90 seconds.
> 
> 
> You've got no more than 10 seconds unless you want end users to actively
> try to do something to recover, which can include calling their ISP's
> helpdesk.

I'd argue the opposite. But, anyway, for the most part the user timeout
is not under the control of the user.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492