Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 31 January 2019 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 7D786130F23 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:03:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 D6xMPAHbRiZV for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:03:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BA9B130F1C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:03:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156924A; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:02:58 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1548968574; bh=Orr7AIXyrNAsMkCxqLF MeTSZnNyD/IABGZmC1afaj5E=; b=ivXiX97O/O+H01ugDba9pa/AfHcUDqRTwdw iEEW0AF3RZkpvlGugK/mT3pAyt0lvQWqYtRR8yqNmMNDs614fh29Nj1iqVAI/XQK 7ZuRkpaAbAUZwef5/UIoLg1uBh9QLBYkGbY7TWNj7W3mI15P8YsNGa9jBJWgV+72 9Erntd/4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id kjC3t_9sPFDJ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:02:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80::10] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80::10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A72449; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:02:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <C9047330-38AE-4146-ABB2-47B2821DA96C@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1DB60745-70EB-40D0-9E13-DA3B9F08EE7F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 22:02:52 +0100
In-Reply-To: <cc9fb413-4622-cb4f-6274-38566f6a2a22@si6networks.com>
Cc: Tarko Tikan <tarko@lanparty.ee>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <7b77cbfe-2bee-fda0-9751-44f9fb95a553@forthnet.gr> <d9eeb2b7-588b-0ce0-00a7-354960d94400@lanparty.ee> <m1gpFLa-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9da736fc-032f-1466-f90f-5d346e73a1aa@lanparty.ee> <cc9fb413-4622-cb4f-6274-38566f6a2a22@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/g51Se67OrV5WxN3d_qgIMCRAjEE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
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 Jan 2019 21:03:04 -0000

Hi,

> FWIW, my personal view regarding the CPEs is that it'd be nicer if they
> behaved nicely -- however, there might be issues with storing the
> prefixes on flash (even if just because the vendors of some cheap CPE's
> don't do the "some required engineering" that was mentioned here), and,
> more importantly, because the network is more robust if the hosts
> implement more robust behaviour.

We should stop making excuses for badly behaved CPEs, they are crappy enough already and I'd really like to work towards tiger standards. That said: more robust hosts are also a good thing :)

Cheers!
Sander