Le 24/03/2015 21:01, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 25/03/2015 08:47, JF Tremblay wrote:
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...] Make-before-break renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering)
is preferable but we can't rely on it. (I also try to never
forget Fred Baker's observation that there is no such thing as
renumbering: there is only numbering.)
Any reference for reading (on Fred’s principle)?
I'm not aware of a written version; it's something I've heard him
say more than once. Of course there is RFC 4192, but it isn't in
that.
Not sure what the question was but there is a stds track RFC in the
2000s about IPv6 router renumbering, authored at Fermilab IIRC.
That has a notion of difference between numbering and renumbering.
Numbering is the initial assignment of prefixes on links. Presumably a
manual operation.
Re-numbering is propagation of tuples [existing prefix, new prefix] with
RAs messages between routers.
This technique was used by other protocols such as Hierarchical Mobile
IPv6 which is an RFC as well, although experimental IIRC.
This of course brings the question of what is renumbering.
Alex
Brian
[...] However, Dave Taht told us recently that renumbering *is*
currently broken, and I'd like to see his list of issues. For
now, here are the issues that I see:
I’ll let Dave answer for himself, but my personal experience at
home currently is that it breaks quite often. As soon as the home
network gets renumbered, new RAs are flooded, but no RAs are sent
to de-prefer the current prefix (as specified in RFC7084 L-13).
I’ve seen this happen both with 6RD and in native, with two home
router vendors. I usually flap my link physically to flush old
addresses.
Btw, I didn’t raise this morning, but I believe smooth renumbering
from an ISP is possible, at least for cable ISPs (costly, but
possible). This requires support for multiple concurrent prefix
delegations on home routers, which I haven’t seen yet in the wild.
This requirement isn’t explicitly mentioned in RFC7084, only
indirectly through the support for DHCPv6-PD (WPD-1).
So on the short term, proper implementation of RFC7084 L-13 is
required for smoother unplanned renumbering. For smooth planned
renumbering, support for multiple concurrent PDs is required. It’s
too bad that the homenet architecture doc (RFC7368 section 3.4.1)
does not even mentions this possibility.
JF
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
