Re: draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum: Protocol-based improvements (Re: [v6ops] cpe-slaac-renum: Proposed text for prefix lifetimes)

On Thursday, April 9, 2020, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

> Hi, Bernie,
>
> On 8/4/20 16:44, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>
>>
>> Ole, perhaps if there was a concrete proposal for an alternative
>> approach, we would go there? So maybe this debate needs to be put on hold a
>> bit to allow alternative approaches to come about. Though as stated
>> earlier, some of this has been discussed for a while and I don't think
>> there are any yet?
>>
>
> We have discussed this for over a year now. Ole has repeatedly argued that
> this is not a problem, or that this is not a problem worth solving, because
> the networks that face these problems suffer from the incompetence/lack of
> knowledge of their admins/operators (even after multiple-statements from
> operators on why these scenarios take place). He deems these occurrences as
> rare, while concrete data and anecdotal evidence suggests 40% of
> deployments doing dynamic addresses. In such scenarios, he argues that the
> user should switch ISPs, when in so many different places I know of, there
> is no other ISP to switch to.

This will be the case of many isps in Africa who believe that customers
should not get static IPs. Their concern is that customers will host
servers at home.

I've heard of isps in Europe or the us having offers for static IPs. This
is not the case for mauritius despite making multiple requests for it.

>
> Now, the topic has been debated for over a year now. Nobody prevented
> anybody to come up with something better.. and as you correctly note,
> nobody did.
>
> On our side, we kept working on this. A few folks (Jen and Philip to name
> a few) found flaws in our early proposal, and suggested improvements, which
> we did our best to incorporate.
>
> We also discussed this with as many operators (this was discussed, IIRC,
> in RIPE, UKNOF, LACNOG..) and developers as possible, and received very
> positive feedback. And we also took the time to produce implementations of
> some of the improvements we propose (please see:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-06#section-6), or
> discuss this with developers that might want to improve SLAAC.
>
>
> Maybe in order to honor the motto of "we reject kings", it would be time
> for the working group to be polled for adoption of this document. Certainly
> not to rubber-stamp it, but to continue polishing and improving it where/as
> appropriate.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>