Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 03:07 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 EAB821200F9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 vCcYQ-eYOPWj for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE06212087B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.36] (unknown [177.27.208.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 320BE86956; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 04:07:31 +0100 (CET)
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <B53CE471-C6E8-4DC1-8A72-C6E23154544F@fugue.com> <325e84aa-1703-e1ce-55a6-8790ceb7aff0@si6networks.com> <BB1268EC-E538-48A8-AD05-A39943F1B397@delong.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <b53965d9-a6ea-8ffb-836b-491ec14033ec@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 00:02:30 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BB1268EC-E538-48A8-AD05-A39943F1B397@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/oVFz3Nl_dbZYMn8ck5yYEVOaZNY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 03:07:43 -0000

On 31/10/19 16:38, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 31, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello, Ted,
>>
>>
>> On 27/10/19 09:02, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> Indeed, this would also not actually solve the problem.   At present,
>>> the ISPs are doing something that is out of spec and causes problems.
>>> If we “fix” this by accommodating what they do, does that help, or
>>> does it just encourage them to continue doing it?
>>
>> Did happy eyeballs encourage broken IPv6 connectivity, or did it
>> actually help IPv6 deployment?
> 
> Considering these mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy.
> 
> It did both.

It's hard for me to believe that folks were breaking stuff on purpose.

In any case, I would assume and expect that helping IPv6 deployment was
more of a priority at the time. IN fact, we wouldn't be talking about
"google seeing 25% of IPv6" if there wasn't a way to circumvent
brokenness, I'd assume.


[...]
> 
>>> When another RA arrives, see if it was signed with the same key.   If
>>> so, it came from the same router, and can be trusted to update
>>> whatever information that router sent, including flash-deprecating a
>>> prefix.   If not, ignore it.
>>
>> In the non-SEND trust model, you do trust the local router. Why did you
>> trust the local router to configure your network, but not for
>> deprecating the prefix?
> 
> Trusting the local router to configure the network to add a previously non-operational host to the network has a somewhat different set of consequence for failure than trusting whatever on-link host wishes to tell you to effectively shut down your currently operating network connection.

We'll that's the SLAAC model.



> Especially when you consider that such an announcement can be sent to the all nodes on link multicast address, effectively dropping them all at once.
> 
> I agree it’s not a huge difference, but, it is a difference and certainly the scope of the resulting problem can be much larger than the case of individual host configuration.

Hosts trust a lot of other crap. e.g., feel free to advertising a Cur
Hop Limit of 1. Is that any different?

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