Re: draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 8/4/20 17:57, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 8/4/20 17:46, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> Sorry, I don't see the gap.
>>>> All deployments I am aware of use the remote-id / option-82 
>>>> equivalent option to identify subscribers.
>>>> Most operators are a lot more clueful about this than us here.
>>>>
>>>> Think of PD as a contract. The ISP promises to lease the prefix to 
>>>> the subscriber for the time stated.
>>>> The ISP can still do flash renumbering (although that's likely to 
>>>> induce a customer call) in two ways.
>>>> One, just ignore it's earlier promise and give the subscriber a new 
>>>> prefix (which introduces all the problems Fernado wants to use 
>>>> prefix lifetimes to solve), or it can include the old prefix with 
>>>> lifetimes 0 (violating it's earlier promise, but at least being 
>>>> explicit) and advertise a new prefix.
>>>
>>> I’m trying to figure out why this is such an utterly unsatisfying 
>>> response.  Yes, I get that in the ideal case, which is what you are 
>>> describing here, there is no problem.  But you are missing _all_ of 
>>> the edge cases.  And you’re assuming that things on a home network 
>>> are a lot cleaner than I think is safe to assume.
>>>
>>> So yes, in the case you describe, where everything is done correctly, 
>>> there is no problem.  I would not expect to see the persistent prefix 
>>> problem routinely.  But I think it’s worth designing for—there are a 
>>> lot of reasons why renumbering might happen in a way that is not as 
>>> clean as you’re saying it should be, and we ought to handle it 
>>> gracefully when it happens.
>>
>> s/ideal/typical/
>>
>> This small problem has a couple of simple solutions:
>>   - change to an ISP that operate better
> 
> Seriously? Please think twice. (Hint: in many countries there's only one 
> ISP -- welcome to the real world).

To add to that, in many countries, as soon as you get away from major 
cities, the same is true.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492