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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 03:31 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 EDFFD1208CF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:31:40 -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, 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 hP3EZqwQM3mO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46FBD120877 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 20:31:39 -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 338CF866C6; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 04:31:35 +0100 (CET)
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <m1iOinq-0000J3C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <44F39DE2-E142-4ED0-853E-2F3AAC6F4ADE@employees.org> <m1iOnqN-0000EpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <ADCF08FD-1366-4CCB-984E-695D8E2AC2F8@employees.org> <m1iP0kt-0000GkC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <21E28E8F-8E91-47D6-8337-9FF0359D67B8@employees.org> <m1iP1fa-0000GYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <1E99599F-0A56-4A53-AD7C-499BC87AA7D3@employees.org> <m1iP5dN-0000GNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <F5D6FB85-F7E6-4600-B50D-BA3E6331E8CD@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <303db654-2d34-695a-9f9d-8747d94f6a89@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 00:31:10 -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: <F5D6FB85-F7E6-4600-B50D-BA3E6331E8CD@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rDiZOon__zVU4bFzmR7lvj2mbxc>
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 03:31:44 -0000

On 28/10/19 11:10, Ole Troan wrote:
> Philip,
> 
>>> No, the question is if there is any host stack + server software
>>> that deals with flash renumbering deployed.  And that is deployable
>>> without coding.
>>
>> Flash renumbering is by and large not a server problem. If a request
>> reaches the server, then the server typically can reply. Any flow that
>> spans the renumbering event will be affected, but there are lots of 
>> other issues that also affect established flows.
>>
>> If you renumber the network that contains mail servers, web servers,
>> xmpp servers, etc., then the servers don't really notice.
>>
>> Of course, a renumbering event requires DNS to be updated, possibly changes
>> to firewalls, etc. But that is no different from a proper renumbering event.
> 
> And this is something you have tested and verified works?
> For a set of typical open source packages?
> See Bjørn's message as well.
> And try to see what happens when you do this for a hidden primary DNS server...
> 
> The world just isn't ready for flash renumbering of networks, likely not graceful renumbering either.
> There are not many sensible responses the end-users can come up with to a service provider with a network behaving this way, apart from isolating addressing. Aka NAT.

We did in fact propose several. (draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum).

It would be amusing for v6ops' response to this case that folks should
be doing NAT.


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