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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 30 October 2019 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 B8EC3120A24 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 mtF85Jqbqdk6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCB2A120903 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id d13so2598926qko.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=c6e5CFONZDiwWQ+PGDfILSeqGWSJwbvai/vSi4o7zP8=; b=Sqn3JqB1wMyl7mem0K+tcORPoj33KNa/IC85BfzXwm+dgZqsK6vPWodrbkpAi3amtr CDXHPbH7sYE8We5GxA6JDR0CcFvTiECUp1p1LbcWd8a86q8PT6LpQF38pBCN9lBrx0ry kEej97Uw8gV9UUs+VP5BIzClwoj/XYIr4ZEkBXI5lTs0LOzUilnMn62zx47wmBu4YSdp 4hSdAh2lRG4XzPYz6jrVHp3tp5z/LMynPbWb/3vNgOIZB1c9DYqRrSsTLnVkwVpY6Nns IRwqdsn+TrQVJO+Wi2XOzxy49bNheT/2Rd7xhXvvSyMg2XWnlfaTL/zXPlWu5n9yat9U zjuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=c6e5CFONZDiwWQ+PGDfILSeqGWSJwbvai/vSi4o7zP8=; b=S5dXXHANIl/pAPaAHlBe68I3bnU8QhN093zQ6XaTaOJ5Deda1Qb+BkOIXBUQrMqLXC 7KskZvIiRErr0MzJkA35ImFNEPw7cINvxN4Zu2V9mmc+9m9TJ+edgqIflbIGmG2U7XHr uWhaaRJ+kO4XP1zvq5nxdxFNXX4DpTiDN0+GhIudLDgFXXK4HubuCePSfAUcxYAIhRu7 oCevJJQSkuJxYdCskFtqCBd6J93Rl9pwzckjOMZpQnPv7sPQXgOwo3Bi5fpNmz2+OBpJ 2z5/6Z/a8A/q03K2DxMwunlvk0R/u24eLVbCpr6WtTfxXaVf/YEHsus+4JtFnJbxpB1+ 2j0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWVIPBN1iVNXn+10yW1ypifpWB3B0p+stVSIYRi2290PBu1gQnl vmO9oRIFjS3hJYAEM1zN45vbVA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwPAOa+Z5itW6tJ/ReDxGig2TR4kp9cJKJj3noHjpbgx7Ic8EU8/PpQFUr3ZY+MMDk5vy35Ww==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:12bb:: with SMTP id x27mr7924589qki.459.1572440341767; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:c5ad:3e58:9e29:c076? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:c5ad:3e58:9e29:c076]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 76sm2120383qke.111.2019.10.30.05.59.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 05:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <96344740-2F4B-4BCE-A881-EB1A5933AFA2@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A62F7A98-8D99-4C73-AB8D-39B40985A21A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:58:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAOSSMjVLP4dx0Z1OKgXBgmuUCmR_C35J87fgkX7V=e7E3iQY3w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
References: <CAOSSMjVhK_V4HpMzprOyo9pj=ysFef+uZUs=twd_zfPaBdPu3Q@mail.gmail.com> <0F0B6068-CA62-449B-B56E-78E9EF8D998E@fugue.com> <CAOSSMjVLP4dx0Z1OKgXBgmuUCmR_C35J87fgkX7V=e7E3iQY3w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/e43H22dWYmTzUuNotPUcaFxS21w>
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 12:59:08 -0000

On Oct 30, 2019, at 8:40 AM, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
> We check both, the handling of the IA_PD and the error message.

And to be clear, you mean that if the CPE asks for a prefix delegation and doesn’t get the prefix it previously had, it deprecates it as described in L-14?  When this deprecation happens, what ways are being tested for it to happen?

E.g., is it the case that the client sends an IA PD containing an IA Prefix option, is the server returning the IA Prefix option containing the same prefix, with a status code encapsulated in it?   What status code?   Or is it returning an IA Prefix option with a different prefix?   Or is it doing both?