IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 31 January 2019 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 CFF12130ED1; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.054
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Wk38GA8Ic0JZ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE5BB1274D0; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:44:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2296; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1548935043; x=1550144643; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Uo61zhgg8S9PjQ6ggLeqwHdGiEOf7VK3axgb8jWzHUE=; b=gmObw/UOdOUdD7A0we5PW+GFBdGAeuDhafjv9IRL4YmLXHS+fWcQ9V1y FVJpySHQDQZ3dRQHOXIT2aUBeZJE9VjeuwpDE6pNrMmkWeogPFCmUKJcA xtPw8E6Yvdwk8TONcJsCUxkFBC6Oy/BuMtyteFfFHJouJapPAZ8Ep3loY 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAAC83lJc/4cNJK1jGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggNngQMnhAOIGo1bJZgOgXsLAQEYC4RJAheCdiI0CQ0BAwEBAgEBAm0cDIVKAQEBAQIBAQEhEToLBQsCAQgOCgICJgICAiULFRACBA4FgyIBgXkID6xSgS+FQ4RqBYELizUXgX+BOAwTghc1gx4BAQOBXoMJMYImAol1mGwJAoctiwYZkjyHO4gSjAACERSBJx84gVZwFTsqAYJBix2FP0ExkA0BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,544,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="234117661"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2019 11:44:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0VBi2wW011493 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:44:02 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 05:44:01 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 05:44:01 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
CC: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
Thread-Index: AQHUuVRHsX2ODcKgIE2mzdLv788KEqXJQdxf
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:44:01 +0000
Message-ID: <225BBDDB-A6B5-4395-A1F6-B8C3AAC83B26@cisco.com>
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/r0nkLW39hl-PG30iKctL0-JHyoU>
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: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:44:06 -0000

Perhaps it is a non issue, but what happens if multiple RAs are sent as there is too much in one to send as a single RA (given MTU and avoiding fragmentation)? And while perhaps for the target market this isn’t likely, as hosts may need to operate in more complex networks ...

- Bernie

> On Jan 31, 2019, at 6:01 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> We have posted a new I-D discussing a problem that can arise in typical
> deployment scenarios where the CPE obtains a prefix via DHCPv6-PD and
> advertises a prefix on the LAN side.
> 
> Our draft is available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum
> 
> 
> The Abstract is:
>   A very common IPv6 deployment scenario is that in which a CPE employs
>   DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to obtain an IPv6 prefix, and at least one
>   prefix from within the leased prefix is advertised on a local network
>   via SLAAC.  In scenarios where e.g. the CPE crashes and reboots,
>   nodes on the local network continue using outdated prefixes which
>   result in connectivity problems.  This document analyzes this problem
>   scenario, and proposes workarounds.
> 
> Any comments will be welcome.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email