Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 20 February 2019 06:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197E812F1A2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:06:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LjpI6hOShlPj for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:06:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x135.google.com (mail-it1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 146C512D84D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:06:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x135.google.com with SMTP id z131so12616855itf.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:06:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jv+OfjNoThzIiLB8fQXvFG35p93W6PO9kbFz9W6LMfg=; b=WMs2JrtwueP7sTlSTLRpkKoHrKvDKVzQMVHKn4WiQvaelPRDtjLYx3EtD3YCXesxoI 415BqZ0ba/RIoKHqUyz+4z6MK1wH+6b5h+5+XQRdUj5Q7O/ZmAi9jN3HryKMlUFavgSG 2gxcuX03INjvtf09BXNN/kuIxzaf7BCo5L3CFkeDodiU5hCj1QAsMWBF6ociILM1Hs4T 8vl9XpMcTYzJ64c0Qc+CmGWWD960lIdJRU8vRF74P2FRoF+MFmqvr7IbsjSI8dX4gPRf 6MxK3SqwN2fw7Gy93PvicMmT78Y4Wyv0D/GkWxTMAQgymooSj9QyUY8quSFPnWqRoGPp HlXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jv+OfjNoThzIiLB8fQXvFG35p93W6PO9kbFz9W6LMfg=; b=Nk4O7T4gCdy3zRV39kP95bPetUnm26GVxICjEjvexAfgLEcwMlTrhjUcHvRAOt1HRe YI7rh8IudYLLqGdDdAM64B2DHybX/UxDt8dY1wTiIYOoWvAWzQbnNAmSFlsPjGQ/9BFr XLJRAoqASkajaC2Z42qHCcqeYhIL2EOYSxAdcwUd8/cIdsN3wD/tco99KIl4mlQNlAhQ RQtZoplBPp57lx+rCD4mlavmmM4U88HNeX3MorP+YXpDpCoqgZ1FsV6g51wXZPSJETGD +ENpHB3tXaYOlb+qa9AezRHGYnQs5OK3RilTjMPh3SEUCv/Zi3kZDmoq8fwerL++tPVb zoag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAub2MDcBLZx8Hae+Kcs/b4QOru48v0bD8RcbAjhxvVVg6QMWzK1g UI8xnFiInbutmON3RFj6HzwtrgBxKMovNS+CYMKFhWuH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaEIIVPBPNOVHkmwimqLdLsqPFwu4zhp/nuE7lA6bHDwsuA2/tXon2F8VT+1sBU3SLRUFxPQtPAhAle2Gidlog=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:45e3:: with SMTP id c96mr4090772itd.89.1550642772872; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:06:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <60fabe4b-fd76-4b35-08d3-09adce43dd71@si6networks.com> <d38857c2-6e92-91d6-bb5d-d3eeeb61276a@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yb47OyXk__Sz-kO00pfcBJgLAhff5DF=mpAddR0iCnAA@mail.gmail.com> <2612280f-195a-ae7a-b3b1-9022d9282fa7@foobar.org> <56F813F4-C512-40A9-8A68-1090C76A80F6@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCN8kU7qnLOphfGR25-xGBe_p6WeGTkKVXwU5uy5aJ8Dg@mail.gmail.com> <65DB4854-97D2-4C31-A691-2CD93812EF93@consulintel.es> <CAHL_VyCMpCcGkEQu+RV1GRf2QLB-HD0+AOOBV0YhfQ5sbydVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CE7A0CD-97D9-46A0-814D-CAF8788F9964@consulintel.es> <e3e0bf2273e04f15b792665d0f66dfe5@boeing.com> <4c5fab33-2bff-e5b5-fc1d-8f60a01a146d@go6.si> <b4525832-9151-20bf-7136-31d87ba6c88d@huitema.net> <463f15cf-2754-e2e8-609d-dc0f33448c6c@go6.si> <ff649810-7242-7bc2-d36f-3f998f7bdd71@asgard.org> <9CDF41CA-83B4-4FC4-B995-EF79727C5458@steffann.nl> <CAO42Z2wA+vLmU7+sU6xLK7TO6pWfNQA5shs9zp=PqANCihLmBQ@mail.gmail.com> <BAB3061A-1808-4C0E-AA1B-2D7DD5BA63FC@employees.org> <4d19605a-3a6f-2266-dd9c-9d30cb25c813@asgard.org>
In-Reply-To: <4d19605a-3a6f-2266-dd9c-9d30cb25c813@asgard.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:06:01 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0tO5-tAS-yKOEMiMz3b8K=Zs-vkH-4mMpooDkx=yWOOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a6f65205824d27fc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RespxO_SPCFOd9dcyzQA2Rd7DpY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 06:06:16 -0000

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:30 AM Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> wrote:

> >> You can still provide a guaranteed static and persistent PD prefix to
> >> customers that want to pay for it, which means that prefix isn't ever
> >> aggregated and can follow them regardless of where they geographically
> >> because you never aggregate that prefix. They're paying for and
> >> getting more value because they're getting a guarantee.
> > Indeed. Wonder how these pesky mobile phone operators manage to deliver
> the same telephone number to a user, for years. Across different providers
> and contracts.
> > I can’t think this argument is anything but a strawman.
>
> You are saying he (maybe others) is either a liar, intentionally
> creating false arguments, or a fool, not understanding the network.
>
> Your insinuation that fixed network operators must be doing something
> fundamentally wrong because mobile voice networks work differently is
> ignorant and insulting.
>
> That's out of line for a working group chair.
>

TBH, if anything I find your comment to be the one that is out of line.
Personally, Ole's remark seems like a humorous way to say that the two
problems are not that different and that since one of them has been solved,
we should probably be able to solve the other as well. In contrast, your
comment reads to me like an ad hominem attack which has a chilling effect
on debate.