IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X"

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 B8EE01209CC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.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 7bmDjD25KxIg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656C1120019 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-220-72.meetings.nanog.org (dhcp-220-72.meetings.nanog.org [199.187.220.72]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xA1GgMnb030639 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:42:26 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com xA1GgMnb030639
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1572626547; bh=ShBpDuvYFu8ZNqakDQ+pS+jr6Dx+ZgHHJ2fguO77HTg=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=upeAO/5BB1Uq4oIMLrk+BPlexJ/KxbAPTQ2SKWdwAlpSdFO+bJBrCK13o5Qbx5LHD RDqvRW9prCuL5l9KSJ5ZZbR9TrZ0DjPbLMouWCpldYLFH8niU0qnmD9J2YZJLsxSKM 3JfWpTwKdEm5zjwAjgScjEDsJ1L38ry46IxzdiyI=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191101.124409.30333597.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:42:22 -0700
Cc: otroan@employees.org, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BEC713D0-361F-4489-9D57-29781BC70B67@delong.com>
References: <94BBC308-365D-41A8-96FB-242BF63FFBF9@employees.org> <D3B1E770-F199-4605-BF78-A3637D6CDB42@fugue.com> <4288FBC0-C421-464F-9D55-7FB77AA1FA4E@employees.org> <20191101.124409.30333597.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8wRURHHOLZs74MszwBz_Jq3WY9U>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X"
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 16:43:32 -0000

> So - TL;DR: We don't do "flash renumbering" for fun, on the other
> hand we also don't strictly follow RFC 4192.

Put another way, from the customer perspective…

“We don’t do flash renumbering for fun, but we do value our convenience
above the impact this has on our customers and therefore when we find it
convenient, we do flash renumber customers as needed.”

I’m not even saying this is necessarily an invalid approach. We all know
(or at least should know) that the margins in this industry don’t support
the cost involved in doing things differently, but, it does make a good
case for why we should be looking at ways to mitigate this issue because
in the real world, ISPs really do break DHCP lease promises on a regular
basis.

Owen

> 
> Steinar Haug, AS2116
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email