nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:01:37 -0700
On Apr 26, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Tony Hoyle wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26/04/2010 08:08, Mark Smith wrote:How much do you understand about IPv6 addressing? Are you aware that IPv6 addresses have explicit preferred and valid lifetimes, and therefore they can change over time?Only via privacy extensions.. and I always switch them off as they're a pain in the neck. Even with those they don't change the prefix.
Uh, no... If you're using slack, IPv6 addresses have explicit preferred and valid lifetimes for the PREFIX which can change over time at the decision of the person running the device(s) issuing the RAs.
My /48 is allocated to me.. In no sane world would that suddenly change, unless I did something major like change ISP, any more than my v4 address would suddenly change.
Agreed, mostly. If your provider issues your /48 to you via DHCP-PD, then, it, too, has a desired and valid lifetime which is expected to be passed along in your subordinate RAs, and, it means that if they reconfigure their DHCP server, you are expected to abide by the change.
You're trying to say ipv6 prefixes change randomly over time - just think of the implications if that could happen... even basic things like firewalling would become a nightmare.
Whether they do or not depends on your circumstance and the design of upstream networks. They may or may not. Certainly it is desirable from a customer perspective that they do not. It may be equally desirable from a carrier perspective that they do. Personally, I hope carriers will design their networks well enough that changing prefixes at random times is not necessary and customers can get a better IPv6 experience. We, for one, use static assignments at HE. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01], (continued)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 29)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Tony Finch (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Jack Bates (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Andrews (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Tony Hoyle (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Tony Hoyle (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Christopher Morrow (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Jack Bates (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Stephen Sprunk (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 26)
- RE: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Tony Hain (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Bill Stewart (Apr 29)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mans Nilsson (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] sthaug (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Richard Barnes (Apr 22)