IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Mon, 04 February 2019 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 17234130DE4; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 17:14:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 kcrol6000OSX; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 17:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 CA6F712D4EC; Sun, 3 Feb 2019 17:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C1103AB004; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:14:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4845160054; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:14:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC5116006C; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:14:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id rNDoLVN68oD1; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:14:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.67] (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AABC8160054; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 01:14:18 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2w=mJfhN5vws37d8Qg2rJg5yhqSH0y+3-MvHsusVemE+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 12:14:15 +1100
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A0529804-4C0D-4B53-9EF2-1A3A8FE41D45@isc.org>
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> <CAO42Z2xzYQESqqsz4AEE89vx=AhvBEf8Yzyae9o7z1U1XYyarw@mail.gmail.com> <af53b388-2985-9e45-a41c-18fc588f88b8@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2w=mJfhN5vws37d8Qg2rJg5yhqSH0y+3-MvHsusVemE+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/kGEjmsncnYh-Hy9fTW4m4zok4Fo>
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 01:14:23 -0000

CPE’s need both stable prefixes and temporary prefixes.  We really should
just describe how to achieve both with PD as currently specified as it is
possible.  We also need to be able to tag prefixes as intentionally temporary
on the LAN side so node can preference those prefixes for temporary address
use over choosing a temporary address from an otherwise stable prefix.

ISP’s should be expecting CPE’s to request multiple prefixes with PD and
should return them.  The CPE keeps renewing the “stable” prefix, the temporary
prefix gets rolled to a new prefix periodically by the CPE with overlap between
the old and new prefix.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email