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

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 13 November 2019 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74831200B8 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:19:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UB-aSsxN2Ing for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61BC12002E for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z23so2002848qkj.10 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:19:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=UoJinkglksfAyPgUldTqkQLqHbluQIbqKgR4mvg6ClY=; b=zNSra8KVcv4Hj4pxb13HiUZD5FKsDx3q+mjQrh5NGhcnAFk21Q+Uz3m+R6dke4JZYB 6g8mnS2yynXcy5hAwU5QzwKW2jrgTIa2LZseX7xpaqidpNHT0MtaBPnmtpPCgKEoRQmE qGXJrcOj4GhrXlAx8IxTrkCk/EzN6ZsuOwF/VvLn0+Ub6vVdrWJukLmNkFi2zZUw+Xat OcL7fP9KsVXbuGL1Lqm21i6/fjlL/UMbgp69tgy+LoihfKIy7af2X4Sa0o8MHEq+XF4r 0SQftqgLbJZOO/qenwdxS/flxgHHRwo7FtItJjQhlBS93ndao40C/e5sJS/CDSyneoJo 33XA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=UoJinkglksfAyPgUldTqkQLqHbluQIbqKgR4mvg6ClY=; b=H/cO+Cw+b4fkEzaxCcL3p7iBnmaRK2Qvym4FvBfGxRcB+8/0p+HZ1wsPWyJFuJ/eox 4nr/Cp8g7+XLlKiwBTzF86n/XLmiu6xtMIM70ZIz3gfjv4oOfK7zAC/x8K5KMjoSgFzK 2JC44WyHCKSrJDhTXrIFPgMbUd8f4YGHcmffXs0eGMi/jKXq1jKT8+vVlvX8/nWnA9Ih ze2glYGLH9Jt1Mx4B26F91bufrIm356StS02V49J50INa5hUATAs7ilqGIdNn4XK7VUv 1N2MMluQcN/vyeDhfDtDQBu/4RjAtcB0r2MmxubDwIkK3oePa+nHqXDMlnidGPmjZcOq 76yQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXKGQxqeQAaULmdfIxTmYZXkhhvV7ccaWqFuwL00jenNbyjAq87 yciK5D6Qov2T4qyVMycy/eEiI/CJapQJGg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy+WEK9k87R9z88zT6HDupFvHOqfFAP7CViQxwP6S5AIUD/pW4xJopD0DdnqcdVNcQJ/y4x8A==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9c44:: with SMTP id f65mr2958316qke.33.1573658340494; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:900d:f981:2ce3:f5f8? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:900d:f981:2ce3:f5f8]) by with ESMTPSA id u9sm1091714qke.50.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 07:18:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_91758C25-BB1E-4E1A-92F7-12187C1A6226"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:18:53 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: v6ops list <>
To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] What problem are we trying to solve? (Re: A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X" (Re: SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds))
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:19:05 -0000

On Nov 13, 2019, at 2:32 AM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <> wrote:
> We do the same in IPv4 because many subscribers had asked for it. They wanted to easily (disconnect the line or reboot the CPE) change addresses.

Supposing IPv6 customers ask for this.   Why would you not give it to them with graceful renumbering rather than flash renumbering?

> That's mostly a commercial decision. Commercially we want to differentiate static vs dynamic.

So you are charging customers to not do something that costs you money and them reliability to do.   Customers who pay you get nothing, and customers who don’t pay you get what amounts to a punishment.   I guess that’s your prerogative, but again, if you are going to do this, why not do it right?  Don’t flash renumber—renumber gracefully.   You still are able to punish customers who don’t pay you, but you aren’t creating a support problem for yourself in the process.

> The biggest technical issue i see is routing de-aggregation due to many different BRAS serving the same customers.

So am I to understand that you have many different routes to the customer, and no way to be consistent about which route the customer gets when they disconnect and reconnect?   Isn’t that a problem with the BRAS setup?

> Aggregating at another level is not an option, because we don't want to have hundreds of thousands of /56s at this level.

Absolutely.   But is that your only option?   E.g., if you were to just have a route at this level for every customer that had been renumbered and still needed their old prefix to be routed, would that tend to be hundreds of thousands?   If so, isn’t that evidence that there’s something wrong with your setup?