IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> Mon, 04 February 2019 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 2244412F19D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 16:08:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 F3Z8n7toHT6Z for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 16:08:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (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 2DB98126F72 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 16:08:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xsmtp02.mail2web.com ([168.144.250.215]) by mx114.antispamcloud.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1gqRnt-000gLb-Ru for v6ops@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 01:08:02 +0100
Received: from [10.5.2.49] (helo=xmail11.myhosting.com) by xsmtp02.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1gqRnn-00010J-D1 for v6ops@ietf.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2019 19:07:59 -0500
Received: (qmail 29438 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2019 00:07:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.200.65]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[72.235.197.82]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail11.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; 4 Feb 2019 00:07:52 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16C101)
In-Reply-To: <85C3CE49-93CC-48E1-94FB-46A0203783A2@employees.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2019 14:07:50 -1000
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <391AE39D-F754-47A8-B20A-3AEC4C174B9F@huitema.net>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1901311236320.5601@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1gpCcz-0000FlC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <ddd28787-8905-bafd-3546-2ceef436c8b0@si6networks.com> <m1gptWx-0000G3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <69609C58-7205-4519-B17A-4FBC8AE2EA16@employees.org> <ac773bb5-0da8-064b-d46b-3a218b8c9e7a@si6networks.com> <CFAEACC4-BA78-4DF9-AD8A-3EB0790B8000@employees.org> <a4f6742e-f18e-3384-d4cc-06bfab49101f@si6networks.com> <FEFA99C2-4F09-4D8F-8D51-C9D9D7090637@employees.org> <a484d5de-0dce-a41a-928e-785d8d80d05d@si6networks.com> <A40C5116-9474-4F2B-BD94-F57D155ECD4C@employees.org> <b05e3872-d63b-108c-6c00-21b951dad263@si6networks.com> <A9FBBED3-A858-4BB1-A02A-2A06CBEB7662@consulintel.es> <010b2c6d-9c79-9309-aad8-32530c9dab94@gmail.com> <A0201A4B-77BB-40F4-A35F-F1491732D537@consulintel.es> <749b121f-cac5-30e0-686c-9f7f29313d91@huitema.net> <2BAD7ADA-6940-45EA-B7DD-0D82B9E95A05@employees.org> <6440.1549227369@dooku.sandelman.ca> <85C3CE49-93CC -48E1-94FB-46A0203783A2@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Originating-IP: 168.144.250.215
X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Username: 168.144.250.0/24
Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=168.144.250.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: ham
X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.04)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: EX5BVjFpneJeBchSMxfU5oBhQfmFSfycR+1XThqEkQp602E9L7XzfQH6nu9C/Fh9KJzpNe6xgvOx q3u0UDjvOxqmjSBeYFUbx3tX4ouiS+JVjyn5UrUp4n4yKOOaq9AxdsPCrFYHXT6jA5t3Pwk+dFDj fzzJ6O8jiVhZi+WiYeCsScX6I9Dl5i6VrUM1b/j5+lC8ScYqqrIKKgZkuEMYGaXe0Of4jddu9xC8 8+iQ5nb7LoaTAX7mj3bIh4FDz/DsTWjvPyjQw0UjfF+Jrlh6iu5FWD3Fo0oXNNKNfWMJhMmBaQIi fdaGzMoXcgXnOXfsRAwX31WVY5lWjWxuGSRuxURW8UvT0kUDO7BO02wlaiMJNrZqjoiSWdcjcZLv /Am2ptBB9icD2fnZzw/HNF6wGm/P3Q658NtotfOVlwP9Y9difvX7GxYM34o1TppnqMQviUSfAdJk YJaAlfzQz6q7eKBmNlijRSWQzbBZx5Si4hrQHolQlVdf0A32Xtl5FAWD8PcNYjhf2jycpxDLnRQv ahqZR3KVQgqF/fPYYAfEfsiW9oFktVPzI6hjS2b07n6nEnix/VaU47nUhRtloJq3YVpl15XLs+NN wqsEJsuDxs3FVfV8YwbQTud2ndj194c9/49qryIYbFFBOkVCXXzvNuW3bv1nPfn3AWXq7M22DtZ0 Dg9K+vwGh2YhLXUzLTJYs7W549ydvqZDiFMXDyPJeJtfWUfKlmRxQlLE/MsS4KDozswVgmo2tH4W 8yU3FuMqsjQyQl5BLbVDtpxmW72Fk6RBNbNatc7DssJAYrVaZ9s8CVsONrMJuGzuoGnKTKcyyDl+ Iey4xwZiQVVdRpyDl2jeRXywq1EjZ4XBR1ffqAuf3MLbn7l3g+Lh7r9C5nLMRGxQZAxG+4f1XAVN zQl2yky2ZS50wJ+lQ+LaxBNJUp6t2ykfuEOAy+YBuZa3mFPXkVWClPVvbW5lVyQanRxw5p2JYH/6 BohvTRmOq56pXi2xVeaE7wHMAOKzNxZH1vP9C0T1BLTNamueI0y1oJZKcQ==
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine9.antispamcloud.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gijlu-kukdAAFdCv1fdSwc0XyJg>
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: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:08:07 -0000

On Feb 3, 2019, at 11:43 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

>>> The router cannot in its RPF check determine the reason for the wrong
>>> source address. If its spoofed or a previously valid address. Therefore
>>> code 5.
>> 
>> Right... if the router knew it was the previously valid address, then it
>> would know what it was, and could have sent a lifetime=0 deprecate out...
>> 
>> (did I follow you correctly?)
> 
> Yes. Of course it might do both.

OK. But then the host knows that it is not engaged in address spoofing, so it could decide to do something about it. That still would be better than calling support.

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email