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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 01 November 2019 13:51 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 ED7D6120120 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 06:51:14 -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 SbzbFJPerZwq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 06:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A96F12006E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 06:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (246.51-175-81.customer.lyse.net [51.175.81.246]) (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 B5B574E11A76; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:51:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B848213BB8B; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:51:09 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <166A84EB-3F53-43D2-86AD-C1233DA45399@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:51:09 +0100
Cc: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5E77C00A-B390-4CC5-B6F5-EB3B0177AA33@employees.org>
References: <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <B53CE471-C6E8-4DC1-8A72-C6E23154544F@fugue.com> <325e84aa-1703-e1ce-55a6-8790ceb7aff0@si6networks.com> <4C6471D4-0F5B-49EE-A38A-22AB2B87DA7E@fugue.com> <CE3BC775-8B50-43E6-8145-3CAB60F6AB4E@delong.com> <ED3EB4A2-30AE-4A1F-82C2-38E9D3A47AC1@fugue.com> <FAED1B1E-43D1-4C00-8EDE-CBDA01B0EBFE@employees.org> <166A84EB-3F53-43D2-86AD-C1233DA45399@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/phu8lIPp9fFVECq_V7DdJP9uB1M>
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 13:51:15 -0000

Hi Ted,

>> At the risk of straying off topic. There is no mechanism for permissionless networking in IPv6.
>> (which I think is a big gap)
> 
> Do you mean permissionless advertising of routes to new networks?   If so, I agree.   It can be made to sort of work for limited cases, but there’s no standardized way to make end-to-end connectivity work between all networks using the various bits of protocol and practice that we have at present.

I would define it as:
"Permission-less extensions of the network with new links (and by implications new routers) are not supported."

NPT66/NAT66 is the only alternative (talking network layer here).

If we have permission then:
 - normal managed network. Just add new router and run routing protocol. Manually managed addressing
 - HNCP (automated addressing and routing)
 - hierarchical DHCP PD (only works in single rooted DAG)
 - proxy ND (RFC recommending against)

Cheers,
Ole