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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 01 November 2019 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 A5DF312010E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 l1WMg0GhvcEA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F9B312007C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (77.16.221.94.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.221.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9EAF4E11A33; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:22:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D993213A60B; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:22:09 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <42A7AD85-6FD3-4EDF-AE2F-4FD1FCA9A2D3@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:22:09 +0100
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <13C39FBE-2AA7-4D92-A5D8-F2681A4E7115@employees.org>
References: <m1iQUNM-0000KTC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <94BBC308-365D-41A8-96FB-242BF63FFBF9@employees.org> <D3B1E770-F199-4605-BF78-A3637D6CDB42@fugue.com> <4288FBC0-C421-464F-9D55-7FB77AA1FA4E@employees.org> <42A7AD85-6FD3-4EDF-AE2F-4FD1FCA9A2D3@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ISnYiKETPOhVuqj5tOJW02Sn044>
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, 01 Nov 2019 12:22:23 -0000

Ted,

>> This is how IPv6 renumbering has been specified for 20 years... I presume that was not news?
> 
> There have been efforts in the IETF to document how renumbering can be done in as minimally disruptive a way as possible (see e.g. Steinar’s message).   There are ISPs that believe that they are supposed to renumber end user addressing regularly to prevent (or at least complicate) prefix-based user tracking.  And there are ISPs that, if Fernando is to believed, and I think he is, do flash renumbering.
> 
> RFC 4192 doesn’t specify timeframes.   I think it’s a good document, but it doesn’t actually prescribe any detailed behavior.
> 
> So if none of the options I suggested have IETF consensus, is the answer to say “then we just assume that people will do whatever they want, and if they break things we’re okay with that?

Can you please read my message one more time?

Ole