[v6ops] Re: Dynamic addresses

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 12 August 2024 07:22 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 A523CC14F70C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ByosVgZHH8KU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B08AC14F699 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Wj5Yg16mPz9vBtL for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 07:21:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NDxnHBC2B-uy for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 02:21:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f69.google.com (mail-ej1-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Wj5Yf5DFyz9vBt6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 02:21:58 -0500 (CDT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p6.oit.umn.edu 4Wj5Yf5DFyz9vBt6
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p6.oit.umn.edu 4Wj5Yf5DFyz9vBt6
Received: by mail-ej1-f69.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a7d2f42df2dso510218266b.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; t=1723447316; x=1724052116; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=q8O+VscC+YqfkDC3e+o3rp/8y3V6wJe+Ygd/FpaZ09g=; b=QGwPacbEff5QsVzrgKYAk4qP17mEVPGtS7v4J5rn1BOgzhTB+PlcfQPAHJmjGZChFI uRjzbF3ckjtSh/Z5isG9qb5Ulmq288BL/hijNHo1kskjL3D88AlzpPWgwebwlMMxirLh By8JJb4YSi+Ybd6b3LAJYz1XWu/hZqb9djBtlrvce495vZ2EIT7VAUMYpgoE/dP/rHdc ATXJYRBkPEJdp+xLXLfqdQ4Afu+i4YronIfpcwFAhYcgZ3PkdAp8WZPA3XSp5mQ9ge7C Ixb4k3zNJ2BX91xw43r2L1OVMPimrtkk5JQxMWSUtAcvwpBcaDauXI3//avAsADSe6WK L+ZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723447316; x=1724052116; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=q8O+VscC+YqfkDC3e+o3rp/8y3V6wJe+Ygd/FpaZ09g=; b=GCz6+R/Ma6Mh1VTUbIGLy9WibcB5i4rIa5UqmBMKZygiAqlzBqBFir9TFy8KAxoS7h ddmIn6GcaPUcg42wH/1SzxV9FUQssihasz3WbfepTErHjuJlziX2JLCnCUU3zrSUa1o3 NIYDNoKoW8xod4mUpxtyxG4p4d2eC+4HSWN/UY6giqxUcmdWE+Ylq7BPPMGrb/MXLuGd leHmXV+65gJZVOrFqgNQ/0CJdujT9hW/vlM78k0TtV2MsdoubgH1QS48uRKDNoXz7O95 PYLovCVfld9ltFtVf+qZPq87LgHczS/VKIx9887130kOOLyTLXV9VzL2WCg/sr+WV6HZ GzYQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXjmjWPjtcGRixBkIR6tdryTBDzsPM/r42nUikw0JhxMnjHeatUmHfCbf3mYR1B8KyMMKwa2HcTdu3lqFtErg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxj7kvuQxR0vF33Tc21G9bsfxyEspyj2Q+5HYVK6CYIBEfLaAVq KwzIb6rcMOUOpKk41nQm/pqZT3uhsK51zGKK+6i7UokSuago5zZ09wep5EqPvZ4Ow8Wne7exPFr omAr3va4mRr+01EXe9Er/foZijznzFulkJJxpWULf30WSxJw/nHzQwqlLDmXyWk1ZewcejBIfvz ByOYfMdanE1zcl4wDWjvMQ6LJLbwc4eA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6a1f:b0:a7a:130e:fb6e with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a8091f1bdf7mr1105802966b.15.1723447316633; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGSiZ/eQQkCBcm8JRmSDt5RR7ObnqaQEokRFj2lDysMoRLfdrzGom9Mhj2+kyH42zUag9XNuwJORNYJMZZOYvI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6a1f:b0:a7a:130e:fb6e with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a8091f1bdf7mr1105800366b.15.1723447316177; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <df01e0f8-1b0d-4792-be2c-89a59da7de49.ref@swbell.net> <6e70bed7-6f84-4a4a-90f8-fec1d10a599b@swbell.net> <CAJgLMKsXHcxzu8Kbrg1pu9SDkGDH0b1bWzW__CrfpDaSv3Joog@mail.gmail.com> <CACyFTPFakaDLdTJVc6d1HiR_oaedNOV76MRQxJp=+z95uQFVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=rQp5U4_X=2WvCV358S9Qm+E+_+gs_mgUJHP_68dYLmg@mail.gmail.com> <d16406c6-e5d9-4aa4-a16e-7513d04d6b07@gmail.com> <CACyFTPEdh_SL3BJ6WcD18tpYzH=Q6gxYnXanTsHZxF4xQm7LuA@mail.gmail.com> <19b076c0-ff57-471a-8f66-6ad47d7169f4@gmail.com> <f469fd02-f67e-4aa3-80e1-e055e63fadd2@swbell.net> <CACyFTPGNUvKkF+hxg1xJPSRNWo4aZN+jtwO3GeMLmQ1pTY8x3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kLTuKjtvsJ5qGd_kjnc8K2HDc7OemMqtaSavGH6kAqJA@mail.gmail.com> <CACyFTPEjAq0kGHFwiNnqsmyhxavu6HhEBu6X7OQXAgaKpPqa1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau05Q2GVydUb8DLfAXYNEtrKPkTFROOWT3cDMr5DSPD8Tg@mail.gmail.com> <a0134031-ce09-4c9e-ab8a-4789f889b4ef@nsrc.org> <CACyFTPHCG5EyjPwFDxqpj2oAW2R3xMnVBZdaQz9n2Et1pNMPUg@mail.gmail.com> <20abbefa-7ce5-441b-864d-130e65374cee@nsrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20abbefa-7ce5-441b-864d-130e65374cee@nsrc.org>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 02:21:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1-jpSEkgSS+bdpHd8a39W=R6GSiH84bO4Y30f5zUN9Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Candler <brian@nsrc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011f69d061f7759dd"
Message-ID-Hash: RJ3F4AYXQYYKFD6VBVVMU6BJJLHBGU76
X-Message-ID-Hash: RJ3F4AYXQYYKFD6VBVVMU6BJJLHBGU76
X-MailFrom: farmer@umn.edu
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: The Multach's <jmultach@swbell.net>, v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [v6ops] Re: Dynamic addresses
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pyLGZmxzat_6LtF0ngAGBJpCKJU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 01:40 Brian Candler <brian@nsrc.org> wrote:

> On 12/08/2024 10:06, Daryll Swer wrote:
>
> IPv4 doesn't have this issue. When a customer pays for a static *IPv4*,
> that IP is permanently static even across BNGs groups (automation in their
> backend would move the IPs around if required, god forbid, it's manually
> done).
>
> But come to IPv6 and most (exception always exists) ISPs globally, refuse
> to give a /56 ia_pd static free or paid. I'm personally really tired of
> this attitude from ISPs, i.e. the IPv4-centric attitude.
>
> If a customer pays for static IPv4 (and the ISP offers it), they get
> static IPv4. If they pay for static IPv6 (and the ISP offers it), they get
> static IPv6.
>
> I still don't see anything specific to IPv6 here. It's just about product
> offerings in different markets.
>
> In some marketplaces or countries or price brackets, ISPs don't offer
> static IPv4; and in some they don't offer static IPv6. I don't believe you
> can mandate a particular service to be available in a particular country by
> RFC.  If you try to, your RFC will be ignored, and hence irrelevant.
>
> What you *can* do is document what the problems and consequences are of
> dynamic IPv6 allocation to end users, and document the solutions or
> workarounds - one of which is that the problems go away if the ISP provides
> a static IPv6 allocation.
>

No, this problem isn’t unique to IPv6 and exists to some extent in IPv4 as
well. However, most deployments of IPv4 today, whether static or dynamic,
utilize NAT. Accordingly, the impact of address changes in most cases for
IPv4 is quite different from IPv6. NAT isolates individual hosts from much
of the consequence of address changes with IPv4.

Conversely, with IPv6, those changes are propagated to individual hosts
through SLAAC or DHCPv6. Therefore, the impact on individual hosts is quite
different between IPv4 and IPv6, even if the underlying behavior of
changing addresses from the ISP’s perspective is identical.

It is the difference in architecture between IPv4 and IPv6 that exacerbates
the issue of changing addresses, and makes it a much bigger issue for IPv6
than IPv4.

Thanks