Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 16 September 2020 16:42 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 E01EE3A0F5E; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=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 xnmd1iY5cH1P; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from skynet.si6networks.com (fernando.ipv6-lab.net [IPv6:2001:9e0:803:1::195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1471B3A0E56; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:1088:9dfd:9390:d75d:cb60] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:1088:9dfd:9390:d75d:cb60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by skynet.si6networks.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC78694; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:41:56 -0300 (-03)
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <8f964b8650cd4b619ff47aed5b07bc67@huawei.com> <7ee317a3-05b7-0c78-0abf-47075839223e@si6networks.com> <3c220cce7c834d50a09784923cb40910@huawei.com> <f93a1cc9-d310-4c88-4a33-a749785c72be@si6networks.com> <a03794fb2d514389b33222f0b3e194c2@huawei.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <17401cd6-e337-4a51-e3b6-6e02978f9c1b@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:40:15 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a03794fb2d514389b33222f0b3e194c2@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/i8DSYSxzSSCC3zvgGUgDsUeS0Yw>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
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, 16 Sep 2020 16:42:12 -0000

On 16/9/20 12:55, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> I do not believe that other cases are representative except many-box solution.
> Because all other cases are: somebody forgotten to deprecate prefix in his software (including VM - just need to send at least one RA before prefix change).

All these things expose a stituation that is not robust. You are 
essentially arguing for brokenness.


> It was better to push Industry to properly develop software to deprecate prefixes, then to compromise timers.

What do you mean by "compromise timers"?



> For the multi-box scenario:
> 30% is the probability that residential subs have IPv6 (in reality less, 30% is mainly attributed by mobile)

Where do you get this numbers from?


> 37% that his Carrier do dynamic DHCP-PD
> 5% that he has 2 boxes in the household (reminder: relationships between number of businesses to households is about 2% for majority of countries, number of branches for big Enterprise could be big (+), but many SMBs would be satisfied by typical CPE(-))

Again where do you get this "5%". Do you just make it up?


And, anyway, the possibility is irrelevant. I don't think I need to 
point out that the use of range extenders and the like are not unusual. 
THat kind of thing works pretty well with IPv4, and could be very broken 
with IPv6.



> 50% that he is not capable to create routed network inside (/64 from Carrier - now should be less such cases compare to 2017).

Same here. WHere do you get these numbers for. Besides, in many cases, 
you *don't want* to have a subneted local network.


[...]
> In response to "why IP camera needs bridged network" you have answered "to avoid NAT".
> We are in IPv6 alias. Whatever you would do in IPv6 - you will avoid NAT. Hence, Routed network inside household is not a problem for IP camera. Right?

A subneted network breaks mDNS.



> I do not know mDNS - may be it needs bridged network. It would be additional extremely small corner case (10^-5).

huh? Most people access their home devices with technologies such as 
mDNS and LLMNR, which operate on a single segment. Because they are plug 
and ply without the need to set up a name server, or anything.

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