issue with SLAAC and deprecated IPv6 addresses on recent windowsversions

[Daniel Roesen]

Hi,

is there any progress fixing this grave bug? I regularily run into it
here, with a fully patched windows 7 netbook.

This one is very high on our list of problems residential customer will
run into...

Best regards,
Daniel

On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 09:41:38AM +0100, Christian Hahn wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Sean Siler schrieb:
> > Or you could get really luck and have the guy who owns IPv6 in Windows
> > see your bug while browsing IPv6 Ops. :)
> > 
> > This is a terrific catch, Christian. I'll ask some folks to take a
> > look at it.
> That's nice news, Sean. Please let us know, if you can confirm that bug and also
> if there is any progress in kicking it out ;)
> 
> cheers,
> Christian
> - ------------------
> gpg fingerprint:
> 31E4 283B 5EFD 920C 3DD4  CC3E EA43 16EC 75BC EB6D
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Sean Siler
> > Sr. IPv6 Program Manager
> > Microsoft
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6-ops-bounces+sean.siler=microsoft.com at lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+sean.siler=microsoft.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Scott Beuker
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 13:06
> > To: Christian Hahn
> > Cc: IPv6 Ops list
> > Subject: RE: issue with SLAAC and deprecated IPv6 addresses on recent windowsversions
> > 
> > Interesting bug, nice job in finding it.
> > 
> > I was talking to a friend who works at MS about what (if any) viable
> > avenues there are to report a bug like this and actually stand a chance
> > of getting it resolved. He recommend this:
> > 
> > http://connect.microsoft.com/WNDP/Feedback
> > 
> > I have no idea how much mileage you would get down this avenue, but if
> > you're feeling optimistic give it a shot, and let me know and I'll be
> > sure to create an account just to vote your bug up. :)
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Scott
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+scott.beuker=sjrb.ca at lists.cluenet.de
> >> [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+scott.beuker=sjrb.ca at lists.cluenet.de] On
> >> Behalf Of Christian Hahn
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:54 AM
> >> To: IPv6 Ops list
> >> Subject: issue with SLAAC and deprecated IPv6 addresses on recent
> >> windowsversions
> >>
> > Hi list,
> > 
> > In a lab I did some testing with SLAAC and different OSs and recently
> > stumbled
> > upon an issue on recent windows versions. It is only present on Vista
> > and 7, not
> > on XP. But let me tell you the story ...
> > 
> > I deprecated an formerly (by RA) announced IPv6 prefix (let's say
> > 2001:db8:1:2::/64) by  sending some RAs with PreferredLifetime=0 and
> > ValidLifetime=7200 and thereafter stopped sending RAs.
> > All windows machines behaved correctly and deprecated the addresses
> > derived from
> > that prefix. Outgoing connections no longer used it as source address,
> > but
> > incoming packets (like icmpv6 echo request) where answered due to the
> > valid
> > "ValidLifetime" value. ;)
> > 
> > Then in the second step (after some minutes of testing) I tried to re-
> > activate
> > the _same_ prefix (2001:db8:1:2::/64) by sending periodic RAs with
> > PreferredLifetime=86400 and ValidLifetime=43200. And here the weird
> > things
> > began. On Vista and 7 the values for the "Lifetimes" where updated to
> > the new
> > ones derived from the RA, but the prefix status didn't change. It
> >> still
> > was
> > stuck in status "deprecated". Hence the still valid IPv6 addresses
> >> from
> > that
> > prefix (2001:db8:1:2::/64) wasn't used as source addresses for new
> > connections,
> > only old connections used it and incoming packets where answered.
> > 
> > On XP it was different. The prefix came back to life, changed to
> >> status
> > "preferred" and the system again used it's 2001:db8:1:2::/64 IPv6
> > addresses as
> > source address for new connections.
> > 
> > To proof it I replicated the test, and restarted all machines
> > beforehand. But
> > the result didn't change, hence it seems it is "stable" behavior.
> > 
> > I assume it's not the proper behavior, but found no clue in RFC4862
> > (SLAAC)
> > where I was looking for allowed status changes or similar.
> > Has anybody seen a similar behavior or made similar tests with
> >> different
> > results?
> > 
> > BTW. I used radvd 1.1 on Ubuntu 9.04 on the router side.
> > 
> > cheers,
> > Christian
> > ------------------
> > gpg fingerprint:
> > 31E4 283B 5EFD 920C 3DD4  CC3E EA43 16EC 75BC EB6D
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAksWKD8ACgkQ6kMW7HW8623hcgCgpIXQzY5uCoBFW+NQtgb3wYHK
> uM0An2ig9SFdJh1wUSbmpN0+p+VyuBo4
> =Qn8+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0