IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Fri, 18 September 2020 07:04 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 39B173A0991 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:04:46 -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 8UV5OVn6bAwL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:04:44 -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 5C2BB3A0962 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0D5285031F0615E74EEB; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:04:39 +0100 (IST)
Received: from msceml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.159) by lhreml737-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.187) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:04:38 +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; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:04:32 +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; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:04:32 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
Thread-Index: AdaLlIyewLCjExjqRk+nNQVH29wmCwAzUPGAABOUmgAAGqqFAAAbuXfA
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 07:04:32 +0000
Message-ID: <76f10fa7030044c4a0b71443fde92f24@huawei.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <f97b7ac2-0b36-2fae-58fd-eddee6f8b408@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.201.149]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/zPmu1kWhhJVGFSE_6ZZHLfJ_rg0>
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: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 07:04:46 -0000

Hi Brian,
> SLAAC is only one of the victims of flash renumbering. (If there was more
> widespread use of ULAs that might not be true.)
[Ed: ] But How? Subscriber needs access to Global Internet.
Is it possible to connect Google by ULA?
Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: 17 сентября 2020 г. 23:49
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
> 
> On 17-Sep-20 20:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote on 16/09/2020 23:44:
> >> 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.
> >
> > You mean to have the ISPs to provide persistent state so that SLAAC
> > can handle things better?  Only half joking here :-)
> 
> SLAAC is only one of the victims of flash renumbering. (If there was more
> widespread use of ULAs that might not be true.)
> 
>     Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email