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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 27/10/19 12:05, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Indeed, this would also
>> not actually solve the problem.   At present, the ISPs are doing
>> something that is out of spec and causes problems.   If we fix this
>> by accommodating what they do, does that help, or does it just
>> encourage them to continue doing it?
> 
> At the moment, ISPs are doing something that sort of works in IPv4 because
> of NAT. It causes significant issues in IPv6.

Note that this is *one* of the network scenarios that may lead to this
problematic scenario.



> Of course, can we can tell ISPs that they are doing it wrong and that they
> should not deploy IPv6 until they have fixed their networks.
> 
> I would like to have IPv6 now. And if that requires some tweaks to deal with
> broken behavior then so be it.

Indeed. Besides, the patch increases robustness overall.


> 
>> If you Really Really want to be able to have the routers send out
>> RAs that deprecate the default route, and, as Mark is saying here,
>> to upgrade millions or perhaps billions of hosts, why not ask for
>> something thats a real improvement?
> 
> Because bundling features is a good way to ensure that nothing gets done.

Indeed.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492