IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Tue, 22 March 2022 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 30CD43A0889 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 COx26Ye-5JkW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 666213A07B2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml742-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KNHGx19qyz6H7cG for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:38:17 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.138) by fraeml742-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 17:40:28 +0100
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 19:40:27 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.021; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 19:40:27 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
CC: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
Thread-Index: AQHYPWL+5ay9cZSrXUWG+DzsIaGQi6zKIZgAgAAMoQCAAA6FAIAApH4AgAALFICAABB9AIAAUtEQgAACLQCAAEnGkA==
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:40:27 +0000
Message-ID: <763e5ec7e18c465a8af81a0cd64eb0c4@huawei.com>
References: <52661a3d-75dc-111a-3f23-09b10d7cb8d4@gmail.com> <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com> <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com> <YjmJQMNgnJoSInUw@Space.Net> <D75EF08F-6A41-41B2-AFB2-649CBCC1D83E@consulintel.es> <YjmgYA2Wee8f2HAY@Space.Net> <27655a220efb416198d11d5652f45c96@huawei.com> <YjnnrPr5zqAkXoLg@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <YjnnrPr5zqAkXoLg@Space.Net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.192.44]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/d_cfvGeYXcYzzn6GHSns03LbA_A>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:40:37 -0000

Because parameters on the uplink
Are not coordinated with ND on the LAN interface.
We propose how to fix it https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-vv-6man-nd-prefix-robustness-02
but nobody is interested.

If Uplink would get a different prefix after 3GPP reconnecting - the host would use the old prefix for up to 1 week (probably 1/2 of the week).

Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 6:14 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:07:15PM +0000, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Renumbering after any 3GPP uplink re-establishment?
> With default timer for preferred of 1 week.

If your equipment does silly things, bad results will happen.

So why would any sane vendor produce 3GPP routers that send a prefix lifetime of 1 week?

This is not a new discussion, it's a well-understood issue, and it is addressed in, for example, RFC8978, RFC9096 and draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email