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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 25 October 2019 17:59 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 54AEB1209E0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:59:29 -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 m4j05zp90CUC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:59:28 -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 6C22E1209E9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2804:431:c7f3:bff2:b8b3:4400:3123:ecb7] (unknown [IPv6:2804:431:c7f3:bff2:b8b3:4400:3123:ecb7]) (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 7EB3186918; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 19:59:24 +0200 (CEST)
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>, 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> <A90AD47E-00E2-4EAB-8BD8-142CC10A6B6F@employees.org> <m1iNv5U-0000KUC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E273241D-9C35-4E07-9525-DF7FA786F419@employees.org> <m1iNywd-0000KmC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <49A6064C-3AA0-4AA6-B78E-ED8404D35B97@employees.org> <m1iNzQi-0000KmC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <6cb8cbee-e315-02a8-ebd5-a83410abf834@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:59:13 -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: <m1iNzQi-0000KmC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Z9l3HCVKwibYqDyatpky-K6fG9Y>
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, 25 Oct 2019 17:59:32 -0000

On 25/10/19 10:14, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> how is that an advantage for the end user?
>> it might be for the ISP. but that's the entity that cannot give stable 
>> addressing in the first place...
> 
> If routing IPv6 is cheaper than CGNAT IPv4 then either the ISP can offer
> higher bandwidth for the same price or reduce prices.
> 
> In any case, very often the user doesn't have a choice. I would like to
> have reverse DNS delegated for all my IPv6 prefixes. That is just not going
> to happen.
> 
>>> In the case of certain banks that support IPv6, the advantage is that
>>> there is no risk that multiple households will share a single IPv4 
>> address.
>>
>> that's a solved problem. security is done at a higher layer regardless.
> 
> Not for that particular bank. They are very much interested in IP addresses.
> 
>> if IPv6 provides no benefit over IPv4 then why?
>> 32 + 16 > 128.
>> or if we allow IPv6 to have no benefit over IPv4 I could rather say.
> 
> The benefit of IPv6 is that IPv6 addresses are almost for free, whereas a
> single IPv4 address costs a significant chunk of money (compared to other
> costs).
> 
>> The changes in the transport and application layers are already 
>> happening (e.g. QUIC).
> 
> If QUIC can deal with this flash renumbering problem then it would be nice
> to see a report on that. I'm very curious how to would work.

THe best they could do is to try to *circumvent* the problem while
keeping all the mess in the network layer. That'd certainly be a bad option.


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