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> Fri, 08 November 2019 14:20 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 070FF120024 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 06:20:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ANqCfhrUrDgW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 06:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (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 81752120105 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 06:20:13 -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 m1iT57S-0000IGC; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 15:20:10 +0100
Message-Id: <m1iT57S-0000IGC@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>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:15:42 +0100 ." <42bd669d-a18b-ef1a-beba-b73f0e5d3448@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:20:10 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/GZ-PVhSsSBNpFb2-wPU2-ZmTrW4>
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:20:15 -0000

> Probably there is no formal requirement for prefixes to be stable
> across crashes and reboots[*], but there is a behaviour of the
> client to send CONFIRM after reboot or wake-up from sleep, as
> described in the RFC DHCPv6.

Sending a CONFIRM after a reboot requires that the client writes the
lease to presistant storage.

As far as I know, there is no requirement for clients to have suitable
persistent storage.

Of course, the big issue is: do we want to delay IPv6 by making IPv6
deliberately incompatible with common IPv4 deploy strategies? If the answer
is that we don't care about IPv6 roll-out, then indeed there is no need
to fix this scenario.

There are other scenarios, but I believe they should be fixed in the host.
Or not at all, if we also declare those operational errors.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email