IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 22 September 2020 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 B415F3A19F4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 S9O7wMEvbgow for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BD323A19C1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 7so12980356pgm.11 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jPrnCxyBo75XeCeymV6/Vc9ZXGnn6ca4L0kYidzLKcc=; b=R5hKrOBHF9BSKhwTXgLdikwkhB3Er/DZ2TD6aqU7klTepzPradgdG5EX4xrsC+11i7 WI8VzrKjmLMLqW2s7RBQX6oATTZyaMO1SUdlkt1HgEpiF4NFT5leJYKY1aojd08SA2HL iziqmuts16VEI8Zw8Qiim3URATte7IUuWUbIhRGEokhRdFzLw8Kb+5vfhIRJkUDw5Mlu g3SxBd/ZIL1OIIaxal9Qlz4/4Xt0mAumsHBEu7sIzilqn4W/hypiHGbX3ePVjN7XRAD+ IU9QHZXhNQRC2ikwIyktzakSW0UMQsdFnlDvd1XH8h7ggf5S6mz9TDNF4/l5OQ44P/CT A2rw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jPrnCxyBo75XeCeymV6/Vc9ZXGnn6ca4L0kYidzLKcc=; b=ZnxEHxSlftLlojSC5q6GTf6Qr0XFfZqwv8FsCopCr9DNQt0bOzKRUBtyGxoE3ZsgLx 4dsehI98NN5XmQzqy3RUBga4CnP3+c0n8YEOZp6+RDgSQhu50OMADUkQv/MSZ79rbFF0 R51fvjfLnHpHV1f8KccvDjWtNIpx0TI2Hrr8lH6H2GXNtDmWJOx5R3QOMPyt3Q4T+jmT IGOJxKZgKn7bR+SaqTJR/S93n+oHZwvbu7trMsOGZGNPZLyTsjsIuUz+aVTwQvDkG0C3 Ra1+ghrVJBkuNBKTnBmh2nm+INIka4LQ/ZhwHuSU5MXw9S/fJNwcOmr//w/QnRGrvl+A gjmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nrjalEhYkTxiLfPXZi8ZF5JJjgUH+7o4FzlUEHwzJdhFAF82W Y1WpK+5K+rF6NdtlQrDVxYl+cmnpsCI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyU4EP28/oIM1w6a9fSxOmTIm+EPz7v3gaE8cklo2U66iXNR/+Q99gXsBMOjqEPBmT2XCo8FA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:23cc:b029:142:2501:35cf with SMTP id g12-20020a056a0023ccb0290142250135cfmr5865148pfc.47.1600808947765; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.138.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d128sm16194434pfd.94.2020.09.22.14.09.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <8f964b8650cd4b619ff47aed5b07bc67@huawei.com> <7ef6cbcc-164f-383c-658b-b3c0df859535@go6.si> <1af87e24-1410-8f89-b50d-9c61694e4644@foobar.org> <f97b7ac2-0b36-2fae-58fd-eddee6f8b408@gmail.com> <76f10fa7030044c4a0b71443fde92f24@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyC7u7bNJD9pUzbFTrBtifbCVmQtPn4YHHs5g7T6omKwLQ@mail.gmail.com> <2e11a0315196499c81b72c171e014650@huawei.com> <EB3611C3-8849-4670-AFAD-4924AC79E26A@fugue.com> <93e01391b78b4c19be87f58f68281cbf@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDhUO9mMTXEB1Z53-sA4KtHMu4-vdB0zb-oukanmEdARw@mail.gmail.com> <5b2f71a95a7944f0bcda368c11c6d7a2@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDP-w9LzQTCkQM-tyjVo+T982aazFJTWeNPvGqHSHRtgQ@mail.gmail.com> <6f5fabd632fb4954adc13ea805be3c0b@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDO_DTtE2Uj-T2f=a4wdJ2QtNrtO8YwMS88rZtcit5MrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <2fec0984-2288-420b-5ca7-6504045b2d5d@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:09:03 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHL_VyDO_DTtE2Uj-T2f=a4wdJ2QtNrtO8YwMS88rZtcit5MrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sYOlcha3Stq5t7KDDlRZcncehAg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
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: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 21:09:17 -0000

On 22-Sep-20 21:45, Richard Patterson wrote:
> That presumes the end-host is multihomed with different interfaces to different networks, rather than attached to a single network that is multihomed.
> 
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 16:24, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com <mailto:vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>     Hi Richard,
>> 
>>     Thanks. You have pointed to interesting case. I have investigated.
>> 
>>     Unfortunately, RFC 8028 (1st hop router selection) has not considered what to do when router is up, but all uplinks are down.

As Richard says, a case with one router connected to the Internet is of no interest
to RFC8028, whatever the state of the uplinks.

If you have uplinks from more than one router, RFC8028 is useful. If one of those uplinks gets flash-renumbered, RFC8028 will react when and only when the relevant RA/PIO is updated. If I'm not mistaken, that is exactly when SLAAC will react too.

When all uplinks are down, who cares? (That's when you would be happy to have a valid ULA prefix, of course. Using GRUAs for internal traffic is not robust in that case.)

(You could argue that RFC8028 should have mentioned renumbering consisderations and ULA considerations, but I think there is very little to say.)

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email