IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

otroan@employees.org Wed, 23 September 2020 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 5DD8B3A0A74 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 oD8e5kqre2QS for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 867793A07F9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C27474E11B75; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:40:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94BF3E3E054; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:40:31 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <m1kL4tV-0000KeC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:40:31 +0200
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <96911F6E-B380-46CB-B165-2AFDEB4D9A87@employees.org>
References: <8f964b8650cd4b619ff47aed5b07bc67@huawei.com> <7ef6cbcc-164f-383c-658b-b3c0df859535@go6.si> <1af87e24-1410-8f89-b50d-9c61694e4644@foobar.org> <f97b7ac2-0b36-2fae-58fd-eddee6f8b408@gmail.com> <76f10fa7030044c4a0b71443fde92f24@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyC7u7bNJD9pUzbFTrBtifbCVmQtPn4YHHs5g7T6omKwLQ@mail.gmail.com> <2e11a0315196499c81b72c171e014650@huawei.com> <EB3611C3-8849-4670-AFAD-4924AC79E26A@fugue.com> <93e01391b78b4c19be87f58f68281cbf@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDhUO9mMTXEB1Z53-sA4KtHMu4-vdB0zb-oukanmEdARw@mail.gmail.com> <5b2f71a95a7944f0bcda368c11c6d7a2@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDP-w9LzQTCkQM-tyjVo+T982aazFJTWeNPvGqHSHRtgQ@mail.gmail.com> <6f5fabd632fb4954adc13ea805be3c0b@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDO_DTtE2Uj-T2f=a4wdJ2QtNrtO8YwMS88rZtcit5MrQ@mail.gmail.com> <b18832ca2efb44d59d2186863f56481b@huawei.com> <m1kKgil-0000LLC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <7080ee174bdc4ddbb800778f4707d442@huawei.com> <m1kKipE-0000IgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <f43b44fceb114ceeafa75a48f360aaec@huawei.com> <m1kL3i9-0000IuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D3C32A83-5DCC-4BE9-93AE-C129ACB27449@employees.org> <m1kL4tV-0000KeC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/lIfMb4OaM53M0jEBUEEqa9PJlVg>
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, 23 Sep 2020 13:40:43 -0000

Philip,

>> Redoing this with ND and the resultign implementation of a spanning tree 
>> in DHCP PD/ND doesn't sound tempting. At all.
> 
> I fully agree that we should not try to do a spanning tree in DHCP. However,
> most home setups tend to have a tree structure. And hierarchical routing is
> easy enough to implement.

They only have a tree structure until the home owner or his kids plug in the red wire into the yellow hole.

> Does homenet really solve the phone problem I described? Suppose we have a
> network with multiple subnets. Assume the connection to the internet
> is down.
> 
> The phone can easily use its radio link to connect to the internet, but how
> does the phone know the extent of the local network? Does the phone assume
> that if you have ULA /64 then the router that announced the PIO can also handle
> traffic for the ULA /48? 
> 
> What if the local network actually has a static prefix and the routers continue
> to send PIOs with a global prefix?

The phone would then act as a new homenet border gateway. Particpiate in routing on the LAN side, and offer a new addressing block to the homenet.
It doesn't care about the PIOs of other routers as such.

Each host will then appear multi-prefix multi-homed. One prefix from the phone connection and one prefix from the regular ISP (that's down).

So yes, homenet solves this. Although there are clearly lacking implementations here. Both on phones and on hosts.
Note that this also solves the flash renumbering case.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email