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

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 31 October 2019 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 EB1F51200E9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 13:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Ci5eoTPl; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=RYGMYdnq
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 5PtvoN9gxy3O for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 13:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01D2F12004D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 13:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3424; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1572553593; x=1573763193; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=seWHfpH9TP4HZj09/wN6XdrZEyYt2H3mRNk9nrdhzz4=; b=Ci5eoTPlyNFzE8fz0HgSYGpxLnvY4SEgeeaU9Z0q1nzsNqhlSTIiswar xC2DAMZdYecgjnA6ZfbUSgC3OCZUgFKrqozdXO225xa3AdDCHdITPlsTO MTh10wk/EXsWPdzhT5CuhdW7WYKxPqVx3PwGuu1JEHMz2Si8+H2ogtLvB U=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AttuaCBCYwHlRizk73rOzUyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9p?= =?us-ascii?q?ssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qgw3kTRU9Dd7PRJw6rNvqbsVHZIwK7JsWtKMdRXUg?= =?us-ascii?q?Mdz8AfngguGsmAXFP8KOzCZC0hF8MEX1hgrDm2?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AUAAAuQ7td/4kNJK1lGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYFrAwEBAQELAYFKUAWBRCAECyoKhB6DRgOKdIJ?= =?us-ascii?q?el2uBLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheDXSQ2Bw4CAwkBAQQBAQECAQUEbYU?= =?us-ascii?q?3DIVRAQEBAQIBEhERDAEBNwEEBwQCAQgOAwQBAQECAiYCAgIwFQgIAgQBDQU?= =?us-ascii?q?IGoVHAw4gAaVwAoE4iGB1gTKCfgEBBYURGIIXCYEOKAGMEBiBf4FXghc1PoQ?= =?us-ascii?q?vGBWCeTKCLI99nXcKgiSVUJlhhFeGE4NWmVMCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVkKKIFYcBW?= =?us-ascii?q?DJ1AQFIMGg3OKU3SBKIw2AYENAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,252,1569283200"; d="scan'208";a="354659025"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 31 Oct 2019 20:26:27 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (xch-rcd-020.cisco.com [173.37.102.30]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9VKQR0r014982 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:26:27 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:26:27 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:26:26 -0500
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:26:26 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=O4iUt5RNgjser1aYIkiGyDiVNeS7ysgjCFUoVm0M/6Ko1uz96p/tNYJOwv8Cnx/GR64f0FtadfSJj/ez0TnDyOmKrO/bLW220jFOXMHIeBXdPN1jDwiq0dU+qXTiqPZbVNDczq+MivamJO6AWXRxnIOEhHizewaUnHBroFd/Jl8PnUgtMrAITc/KxRJTOutOjs9ULTGHqnqazMkVzzky3CfL/JJ2RnpLGXGpp1HngLSFFXezE7YjnyBp3t9dMaUJmBvV0755gAEF4EmTY0VQA+9mlgXy31JTh/iJl54AKco+qcVJIGlaElwdBtwOdGYPQSOqZC/Ng7lc1F0NOl24gA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=seWHfpH9TP4HZj09/wN6XdrZEyYt2H3mRNk9nrdhzz4=; b=WGQO4uJJE9t0I6FyXyehVo2kBDprj8P2lYtb/lgwPtTy9fAMKoGsI9nnnsMYuID4JiO2uva0G5fO2L75SVMTK9IuUy/eCvtwoMkYDCjGWN5ry3+5E512lyCugU1NAahq42YNm8XqvKJF+JMK/pnLKBSoqiuVSx7KB65bCnFH2glq3Dh/a07/Z0DHDfCE497Ob4pcEO3E2Qor8o/5+rw8+QFlcSgxfbkQKyuELnIjnN66tt5fs6Lqq2gU5lVPPsi6t6FF/GWi5Nw9K4I7c9HL4U3YMvUxj99KmdXpPYOeaAfVIGrV92LbI8/1redJBU7F1GBQ9axAE5v7HLHKxtRg3g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=seWHfpH9TP4HZj09/wN6XdrZEyYt2H3mRNk9nrdhzz4=; b=RYGMYdnqPJ0iQ31pc9PJlwjsUAGLAxEVei9Dxyj+k5nacFRd0nxg4btY3hN4np0di3HAoimnaPpG9lz6BKqE5fOCs7hhQ9KG7uNAG4Ahe/b8FTvHjg0mqout4X1MSM6ZKKPI/dg3Ajk9YtlcgfZ2/jFpXLfXLHDdMAkdPH92Ue8=
Received: from MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.97.139) by MWHPR1101MB2255.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.101.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2387.23; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:26:23 +0000
Received: from MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::808:4d44:a5d1:c7f6]) by MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::808:4d44:a5d1:c7f6%11]) with mapi id 15.20.2387.028; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:26:23 +0000
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, "Ted Lemon" <mellon@fugue.com>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
Thread-Index: AQHVibwc6PRwlsH+ZUmOeFzp+XKiI6dt8FJugAA0sICAAERiAIAACLmAgAATKlOAAANjAIAAXboA///n6oCABmZYgIAABRDQ
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:26:22 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR1101MB2288B397865CAE5FAD30698ECF630@MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <B53CE471-C6E8-4DC1-8A72-C6E23154544F@fugue.com> <e67f597d-93a7-3882-3a12-69519178893d@foobar.org> <m1iOinq-0000J3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <DC2F31E2-8CA4-483A-B1A1-6730A904BA32@fugue.com> <A96A5C76-93AE-40E4-BA52-776F9277C382@delong.com> <74875D36-6A96-4FB2-853F-86875833470D@cisco.com> <d45a39b2-cbad-3fbb-3e92-7fb85c3fa088@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <d45a39b2-cbad-3fbb-3e92-7fb85c3fa088@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=volz@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.77]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8a2b546b-174b-4602-36de-08d75e4098ff
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR1101MB2255:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR1101MB22556962C145EDC579606015CF630@MWHPR1101MB2255.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 02070414A1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(396003)(366004)(136003)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(486006)(55016002)(9686003)(8936002)(186003)(6246003)(71190400001)(229853002)(6506007)(53546011)(6116002)(26005)(102836004)(446003)(99286004)(14454004)(2906002)(3846002)(7696005)(76176011)(6436002)(25786009)(14444005)(5660300002)(256004)(5024004)(71200400001)(76116006)(110136005)(4326008)(66446008)(316002)(52536014)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(33656002)(64756008)(66476007)(66556008)(66946007)(478600001)(7736002)(476003)(66066001)(74316002)(86362001)(11346002)(305945005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR1101MB2255; H:MWHPR1101MB2288.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: NB7+vMPIBRyUQYXb3vPLA8HpqSN5suxOQE51tSTELlaIl4KOPTGYf+PmXjVbQqVpdLiCH9/XGhJ4377UgI8SKg1XyZW5ZwwCCx8J74xmkKZYffyzMTwn7IkzTN/rCimuOkJefcrx/KuFE38H2RjEcFOwFw44cGoLr800nWU9Um8w36p9VhjLL0xAJLBGeA5gHY3i8cXaepLItXCDnwfc6BByvQedTm0oNTCVB+kuy0nVMRKMpzvj6SLVI+9GM9VkxuGizEvHW5jITFgSE6BWtcgRfV7QzCP0quqPrVhOTaxgcetfX7otszix3491bRQOBYdQ+O9g2FJtoTj/aM09lMe8NMBP18bvMx7wX32EXlK/fDth7ybaftEbOZnQdgrT1e+HtM10vaR8vJIV3e4q3JrEGn+LpTM6y9Wt25yzDAe+u4P0dtAmSzhxlP6cG4fS
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8a2b546b-174b-4602-36de-08d75e4098ff
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Oct 2019 20:26:23.0256 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 6svcNUBxIajyycCh9uCyPZkRmQdqtur5k2Ac0R+LwiliHjrTSWmEM5jjUzTSuU87
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR1101MB2255
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.30, xch-rcd-020.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/WUa6AnGpXz1L4j6A6I1LYrsRMgg>
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, 31 Oct 2019 20:26:35 -0000

> Doesn't the above imply that the client remembers the addresses?

You are quoting from section 18.3.4 which is Renew processing.

There is no requirement as far as I recall in RFC8415 that requires a client to remember anything across a reboot.

And in most cases, there are no issues because the client will get the same lease (and in many cases with proper renumbering), the server should provide both the old and new leases.

It would be nice to better understand exactly what SPs are doing at their end to cause the issues with servers where they are not providing for graceful renumbering (when the CPE is rebooted to either trigger the renumbering or during the renumbering). Or is this an issue with the server they are using (whether a limitation, bug, or possibly broken feature [in this use case]).

Certainly if the SP removes the "old" prefix from the configuration and replaces with a new, that would mean that the old lease is likely "gone" and hence cannot be provided. But that's really not graceful renumbering.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> 
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:48 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>om>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>om>; Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

On 27/10/19 19:03, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>>I don’t know of a single DHCPv6 server which operates that way
> currently. Can you point to a working example?
> 
>  
> 
> That is actually the RFC8415 specified behavior … the DHCP server I 
> work on (Cisco Prime Network Registrar) will do this if steps are 
> taken to “invalidate” a lease.
> 
>  
> 
> See RFC 8415, Section 18.3.4:
> 
>  
> 
>    If the server finds that any of the addresses in the IA are not
> 
>    appropriate for the link to which the client is attached, the 
> server
> 
>    returns the address to the client with lifetimes of 0.
> 
>  
> 
>    If the server finds that any of the delegated prefixes in the IA 
> are
> 
>    not appropriate for the link to which the client is attached, the
> 
>    server returns the delegated prefix to the client with lifetimes
> 
>    of 0.

Doesn't the above imply that the client remembers the addresses?


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