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

"Radu-Adrian Feurdean" <ietf-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> Wed, 30 October 2019 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>
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 F1DBC120B2F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 cjUUT60EwzoE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00CDF120B7A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F33F591 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap3 ([10.202.2.53]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:28:10 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=5hvzbs Dnsk+gA6gwSQn2VcV99P36+iikJXABB1mg0g0=; b=chgBUg8a50bxr0pdeHzAJV I6bgWgqb0U11TqDFuaPe/bFuL3niIjiVMPJquEBesG5RPjVA7vmaJouty5S31STI HBypxvtrDvFcbCkCUZMqjsZqhIFXR5yRJOHrtSNtESBAsCpLRcqxTKHknrIwuKlU YCVYUwyAvh0qVl3v4YdJFqtqeENVcqn7zaTOjihBj0lmH5Q0FG/pxLuh4Wry0/k0 3/U2gmAdoA8UlQuPNcFnHqUiQPWw1sRAmrKLf2D/UVcSm5f2OJnw8P496ZfSfmAk XaZbkjYEQ9ebW10vjy37qe5kCmuQbYG+hqK1/NzT951mkbWlRQSaXcd+MlTrLlBg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:-Z25XbTP-hHt4RNKN-2w99-uZWW4r8Xb69ZvO2piWw3A0fNbt1I51A>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddtfedgieehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedftfgrughuqdetughrihgrnhcuhfgvuhhruggvrghnfdcu oehivghtfhdqfihgshesrhgrughuqdgrughrihgrnhdrfhgvuhhruggvrghnrdhnvghtqe enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepihgvthhfqdifghhssehrrgguuhdqrggurhhi rghnrdhfvghurhguvggrnhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:-Z25XeRDHVKNsiyM-r0ze_2yzAS99XH12OLWojvHoQztRbTRA0cizA> <xmx:-Z25XZdOvUQ-R7Z8TLLFZDxVEmFpnWSoBz3ssY56pcqUg4kl4K75aQ> <xmx:-Z25XdAywwPyAQ16rOJkgGEgpsbWZ6Rs6gMOO4QWJ7NFezSVJf_pBQ> <xmx:-Z25XcQM7o9Dq3fAvqJpIHt7HdU9hYsPCULRk7OTJz4wl1SdVT2lQw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 56EF34E009F; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-509-ge3ec61c-fmstable-20191030v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <9dfd5e47-c593-4145-b530-74fb0f4155ed@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bb750ae0-940c-2477-fc6b-cea38af777e5@gmail.com>
References: <85b1ef40-f107-0ece-3e71-377f4d22dd46@si6networks.com> <bb750ae0-940c-2477-fc6b-cea38af777e5@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 15:27:49 +0100
From: "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" <ietf-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/v0uB7Jy830GEwVODQZ4DYvISNqc>
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:28:13 -0000

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019, at 11:20, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> In particular, the home networks scenario is very appropriate.
> 
> First, I must say that the home network that I use uses a fixed /56 
> allocated by my ISP.  In this, the prefix never changes, and it is not 
> obtained by DHCPv6-PD - it is guaranteed by contract signed by hand. 
> Such a case could be mentioned, as not being a problem described in this 
> draft.

If you are talking about residential service (not business/enterprise-class), I would like to know who your service provider is.

> I must say that this kind of software (request a prefix with DHCPv6-PD, 
> form sub-prefixes, and put them in RAs on the other interfaces) does not 
> exist as open source or some other available package.

Dibbler-client does that by default. Once the delegated prefix (shorter than /64) is obtained, a /64 from that prefix is assigned to each interface. With proper radvd.conf configuration (prefix ::/64), RAs will be sent for those prefixes.

A lot (?? most ??) of CPEs implementing DHCPv6-PD client do this in some form or another. Some do this automatically (take prefixes and assign them to interfaces), other need manual configuration (n-th prefix go to interface ZZZ).

> Because of that, I am surprised that you call it 'the most common 
> deployment scenario'.  Is this a scenario that is _expected_ to be 'common'?

"Expected enough" to warrant a device to be disqualified as "CPE that supports IPv6" if it doesn't work this way. In an ISP environment.

> I would like to request addition of two other scenarios:
> 
> - an IoT scenario, in which an IoR Router connects several sensors to 
> the Internet.  For example, an IoT Router is deployed in a box at a 
> traffic lights.  The IoT device is the Traffic Lights Controller 
> connected on Ethernet to the IoT Router.  The IoT Router is connected on 4G.
> 
> - a vehicular networks scenario: the On-Board Unit is deployed in a car. 
>   This OBU has a 4G interface and an Ethernet interface.  There are 
> several computers in the car that need IPv6 addresses.

Like : you have a mobile phone on a network doing IPv6+NAT64, you pout it in tethering/mobile-hotspot mode, and connect several other devices (usually laptops) to that hotspot - they all get IPv6 addresses (in the same single /64 that the phone obtained via SLAAC or something else). It is clear that getting a /56 (even a /60 or /62 would do it) via DHCPv6-PD would be a nicer solution, but when your mobile device runs android....

-- 
R-A.F.