IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Thu, 17 September 2020 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 A7DBC3A0C92; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 02:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 sdUJ5F0K1VTk; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 02:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F51A3A0BEE; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 02:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml747-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E83261DFF869B45D0924; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:29:55 +0100 (IST)
Received: from msceml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.159) by lhreml747-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.197) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:29:55 +0100
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:29:55 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:29:55 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Flash renumbering
Thread-Index: AdaLlIyewLCjExjqRk+nNQVH29wmCwAzUPGAAByigVA=
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:29:54 +0000
Message-ID: <90c6f0e816884a71be121225503a284f@huawei.com>
References: <8f964b8650cd4b619ff47aed5b07bc67@huawei.com> <7ef6cbcc-164f-383c-658b-b3c0df859535@go6.si>
In-Reply-To: <7ef6cbcc-164f-383c-658b-b3c0df859535@go6.si>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.206.217]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/wsSCWLpJjtz9aTi8DddET46Flps>
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: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:29:59 -0000

Hi Jan,
Delivering the same prefix to CPE after reload (by DHCP-PD).
Yes, I am with you. Good comment.

Unfortunately, Fernando has shown a few additional (even smaller) corner cases that needs to be addressed anyway.
When I have started to think seriously - I have found a few additional tiny corner cases (not show in Fernando drafts). That is better to address too.
It would be ND renumbering nitting draft.
Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Zorz - Go6 [mailto:jan@go6.si]
> Sent: 17 сентября 2020 г. 1:45
> To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; 6man@ietf.org; IPv6
> Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Flash renumbering
> 
> On 15/09/2020 22:29, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I did think on the problem today and come to the conclusion that the
> > problem has very small corner case. We could say that it does not exist.
> > It definitely does not need urgent solution.
> 
> This problem is so real in deployments where operators decided to go with non-
> persistent IPv6 prefix delegations that we documented it in
> RIPE-690 where we suggest to deploy prefix delegations as persistent/static as
> possible so networks/hosts behind CPEs don't suffer from this issue.
> 
> My personal preference strongly lies towards static/persistent IPv6 prefixes, but
> that doesn't mean we should not make SLAAC at least more robust to more
> accurately and timely follow the topology changes (one of them being PD
> change).
> 
> Cheers, Jan Zorz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email