<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 16px;" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/Aug/16 14:54, Andrew Alston
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 153, 0) !
important; border-right: 2px solid rgb(0, 153, 0) ! important;
padding: 0px 15px; margin: 8px 2px; background-color: white !
important; font-size: medium;"
cite="mid:9E51135D-7FA5-459F-AD38-1DD48A439757@liquidtelecom.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The original
theory (this was out of Cisco’s deployment guide, which now,
having learnt a bit more, I realise was talking nonsense)
had to do with clients disconnecting and reconnecting and
override of old entries.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">One thing we
are finding (and thanks to Jan who pointed this out to me as
well), is that Dynamic V6 on the mass market creates
problems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Particularly
if you are doing a DHCPv6-PD and then grabbing a segment of
the PD to assign to the LAN interface which in turn does
RA. Because if the client reconnects and gets a new
DHCPv6-PD segment, and the RA then changes towards the
client, the client ends up with two v6 subnets and two
gateways until the RA expires, and this breaks things on a
number of platforms. (And also ends up with certain large
content providers seeing breakage and blacklisting
recursives as a result lol)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The general
consensus that I’m seeing elsewhere is that when doing v6 to
the mass market, static is better and full of far less
problems, and that’s what we’re switching to now with a
provisioning system, so v6 prefix to every client will be
static.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It feels like there is a bit of blame to go around re: the CPE
vendors.<br>
<br>
I've not been through the spec., but if the DHCPv6-PD assignment
changes, the CPE should know this and quickly flush the previous
entries as a matter of course. If it's not, this is an
implementation issue. Even if the spec. does not explicitly call for
this, it should be common sense not to have competing subnets on the
same interface.<br>
<br>
That said, I'm still not sure how this affects the upstream port on
the CPE, unless you are doing ND/RA for that. I haven't yet heard
back from you whether you are doing ND/RA or DHCPv6-IA_NA for the
point-to-point WAN addressing, in case this matters.<br>
<br>
Assuming that you are guaranteeing the CPE version you deploy, would
it be possible to automate the clearing of the routing table upon
successful authentication of a new session?<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>