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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 24/10/19 10:38, Ole Troan wrote:
> Eric,
> 
>> What about a "IPv6 renumbering considered harmful" or "Unstable DHCP-PD prefix considered harmful" ?
> 
> Perhaps, but isn't there a long list of documents the IETF has produced on IPV6 renumbering already?
> Would a new document say anything new and more useful?
> 
> And it's not like DHCPv6 PD (RFC3633) isn't clear either. From the abstract:
> 
>    The Prefix Delegation options provide a mechanism for automated
>    delegation of IPv6 prefixes using the Dynamic Host Configuration
>    Protocol (DHCP).  This mechanism is intended for delegating a long-
>    lived prefix from a delegating router to a requesting router, across
>    an administrative boundary, where the delegating router does not
>    require knowledge about the topology of the links in the network to
>    which the prefixes will be assigned.

Long-lived != immortal. As long as a prefix eventually changes, that is
when the problem may be experienced.



> That said, if people want to write a "IPv6 networks need stable prefixes" document, go ahead.
> I'm skeptical that playing with prefix timers and protocol mechanisms will do more than put lipstick on the pig.

It's not putting lipstick on a pig. In the current situation, hosts
essentially do not react to prefixes that fade away. This is something
that can be easily improved.


> Iff we wanted to solve ephemeral addressing / connectivity, that's would require something else.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by ephemeral addressing /
connectivity?

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