IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X" (Re: SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds)

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 11 November 2019 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5A4120886 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:52:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zBelKWb2a_Nk for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC8AD120884 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1iU5Qw-0000LGC; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:52:26 +0100
Message-Id: <m1iU5Qw-0000LGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1iPlMZ-0000J5C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <FACE45EC-27FC-437A-A5BF-D800DF089B50@fugue.com> <837E9523-14FC-4F6C-88FC-DCC316265299@employees.org> <CAO42Z2wz1H-x1O+k-ra09V=xON7GOYM+0uHkG0d3ExnsGNuDeA@mail.gmail.com> <03aad034-4e35-743f-975d-7d3c9f29b5cc@si6networks.com> <9EC75FDA-10A6-4FDC-BB42-EFC51C6631DE@steffann.nl> <6ecec6fd-4972-66dd-7e39-9c7ba6ec291f@si6networks.com> <B958A56E-1B79-40AF-93C6-80F0831259CC@employees.org> <404f30c0-4162-c33b-ae83-3700eb723ca9@si6networks.com> <42bd669d-a18b-ef1a-beba-b73f0e5d3448@gmail.com> <m1iT57S-0000IGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2xdU+EyrB5FjLY-XVyOvVxnws3VAfBynUs0LAa_zov5yA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:50:07 +1100 ." <CAO42Z2xdU+EyrB5FjLY-XVyOvVxnws3VAfBynUs0LAa_zov5yA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:52:23 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/-Z4KUcrJTyVKyDJJ0rmF6cr8Afo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X" (Re: SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 08:52:36 -0000

>Why do you think that this "strategy" exists in IPv4 deployments?

One way to end up in this scenario is to have a pool of IPv4 addresses in
the access router. A redundant access network makes it possible for 
customers to end up on different access routers.

So when the CPE reboots, the line goes down, and the customer gets assigned
to the best access router. If that is a different one from before then
the customer experiences flash renumbering.

>Why is it relevant and preferable today for IPv6?

We want to make it easy for ISPs to turn on IPv6. If we first make them 
redesign their networks then it will be more costly and take more time,
so there will be less IPv6.

>Why is it best for IPv6 when people get something different in IPv6 than in
>IPv4 - public address space to use on their LAN.

It doesn't have much to with wether addresses are public or not.
Flash renumbering happens with public IPv4 addresses.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email