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

Ted Lemon <> Mon, 11 November 2019 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087FC12084F for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:31:57 -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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 7Itcf1DQTdXY for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:31:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92AFA12081C for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r20so2819682qtp.13 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:31:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=RPQLrZ4JhmSI6dx6DksETKVWJ+7FstG52RmvUygX4jc=; b=BlwNZ97wW9bMvxcwch9qZR1eA9NjgdKo76p4hmgFrBdY4jqD+cq/zo50Y456ShwBWL yjRu1BAcCpULE7YVl9KcsXg2rrSsEMMrkoNWtY+twV+Cs6f8m7l47cHetdHrQebxcLad /TsoBVk5r09BvKVzWocCuyEpLCX4/dgZL1/permW2r2Ppdqc6ittc0nT3n6wtqHO7SYx VWmTDKoBnIoEfvhmKD4T110xpAIimfnMSLoHCpj3LETSo1lc2wNGGSoC4aKDKwJcpwV/ oRFf6tnyYqliAD1DfxtpR5h1jBJbgH5gw6sSFf/iNzFDdqYNMOCRiPg/sh35s506gm5H WVlQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=RPQLrZ4JhmSI6dx6DksETKVWJ+7FstG52RmvUygX4jc=; b=tL7IG68VnPkk3m+zEi8+qa8rMfnJZR9GV5nTdB5HtMWaKWc/2y0FK+gFylcV6gk7Rt vnrGpzgvytG4KO0LVg+s9vbxZR8OpylkDvd5pHxvzFB4wnmGysuRIoI5Hhiwey1JUcyF GtM5HD9okMmePItut03A5/b6jqQiYthE0ZxPAg0md+UzSlpUmZLZFfKpVkZqptmpDQiK gpoXvZvpB+BlFmV2nivWctoeQz3vMcNyWjBNiEMqd4/KEutTjUafT9V4e9kiwlST8JsQ xiBKt8ZVPncPBObsc3MKh3tKRkTeDm7ge8nt1vYnJoujlF3Psnk0YAXMmXk7ZjyBX44W DE/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU9aj8tTU3m7v+gjezpl2Ouyewdi0qijmYBlTNYjOhBFP9fpVrW WKnte/99W8pF6uClfOluoLX4hU/XLB2kYg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyrMNErU5sYPAv7yp8BZh3UBAElBTkgflREjjFcvgs6yoCpyTZrCbU5dphhBIczERZsBsSl6A==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:228b:: with SMTP id p11mr27960286qtc.196.1573500704630; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:789b:98b5:343d:2290? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:789b:98b5:343d:2290]) by with ESMTPSA id t2sm7667419qkt.95.2019. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:31:43 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7FB3904F-615C-443C-836E-DD294A23FCD3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:31:43 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: " list" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Richard Patterson <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B84)
Archived-At: <>
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-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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:31:57 -0000


> On Nov 11, 2019, at 13:55, Richard Patterson <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 17:11, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
>> Nobody is expecting you to never renumber.   Well, at least I am not. What I am talking about here is deliberate, opportunistic renumbering. If your topology changes and you have to renumber, so be it. If you can avoid that it’s better, and if you can give notice it’s also better. If you can do it gracefully with temporary routes, even better. But you shouldn’t be renumbering just ‘cuz. 
> In that case I think we agree, an operator shouldn't intentionally renumber "just 'cuz".  However the scenarios I mentioned are far from the Operator going out of their way to not support stable prefixes. The question is just around how stable they are, and once you start having to ask that question, then shouldn't we be looking at ways to mitigate the impact to an end-user?