IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 30 October 2019 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 1004612001E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 HysHTuZeIFxt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x231.google.com (mail-oi1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2662120018 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x231.google.com with SMTP id n16so3603694oig.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+bWlXDCtHUVE4EuqDjgITPpIggea8pzJmdYlFqLzqQI=; b=bKcsebivz+ouJEMa/y49hsKXBr/RIgNlvQdGOqjgYdtgMt99ueRpfhSPx2FTfoHzta cvpw5SVoWR6cYGlLflqZ4kzAa0fPzMksr2JHJVKEbt6546C7IvWOp4vaw11oZ9eUtss/ xkH7IG8/6rL8JAoT4X9Jma9oRCJAhRhxVlj7Ogf0wGCrACOtH4TGQHB8ez33mJyeDKCa WELfEzz+7syxGqrj6y+DlQ7CjmxylF3THLzzs9QuHKzVxm+SSMIE2sjqEjrA4VGS8xo0 +9oMbeCd+DlwMSGu/RqFJwTdR/0oK6m2ZhJ5jxiBPtvO0rw9gw/GD6HqBTZqxWiW2Vx2 iQ2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+bWlXDCtHUVE4EuqDjgITPpIggea8pzJmdYlFqLzqQI=; b=uDkfHlyJLw7HAlnDA4YteL6eL5ZcyV0C28FF2hWJoW7sHTvFpO8+sF/JiW2Hz1tCd5 6ktGG55cLy5KROnXZlgaCnlpwLpxfYrTnlTgg4q4H4OjEXn9d7O3/jNe5sTCt/0n5THZ OiXqihL/WXVpSh7acNCvn/ds9RbVU6dwcThsAdI7E8VfgqwgSjbNsXaHDxHY6/ijwOp3 CixYMWvCGLrPj9+Z8HnYfqlYqhAw9q376pEJzsAdhGjetSFZcl8yGa3Vxn81I3vA8VCN KjoY7zzBsn6ghBuXPwYU0xa4Zqvp/fc9XP9Ams4ifoAHVsbJ1XRuBK8q85pYhVfiyv7E 3Ftg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWQmguTigO/QvjGMRGMsud5DjrI3zr0VAR7Zx2a0jQIGoItyQAs O60rlQAdMmpwSP9Ah6sv0bdNuFFfcwO3PGHeJSM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZqxSrTGeQLjMnYLrUjo+Ov2Gw9KTSMrulG/eLS2sTgi0gmDLIS3r2vnCBvQIA1sxmwg2FgsjtRxoJQ7I1cSA=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:2211:: with SMTP id b17mr1595398oic.38.1572478748186; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <m1iPlMZ-0000J5C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <FACE45EC-27FC-437A-A5BF-D800DF089B50@fugue.com> <837E9523-14FC-4F6C-88FC-DCC316265299@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <837E9523-14FC-4F6C-88FC-DCC316265299@employees.org>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:38:41 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2wz1H-x1O+k-ra09V=xON7GOYM+0uHkG0d3ExnsGNuDeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OtqPq2C0OIjpXHb2WjXEEJ4TfVg>
Subject: [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: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:39:10 -0000

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 22:02, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
<snip>

> In the case when a requesting router loses a prefix, it can of course signal that to the hosts as proposed in Fernando's draft. But that doesn't solve the general problem, and I'm skeptical to using addressing as a reachability signal. E.g. if the CPE's upstream link flaps, is that enough to trigger deprecation of the prefix? Of course it shouldn't.
>

Exactly. Transient network faults are supposed to be survived - that's
why TCP makes quite a number of attempts at re-transmitting when
packet loss occurs, rather than just immediately terminating the
connection.

When an ISP "flash renumbers" a customer what's really happening is
that the customer's network layer point of attachment to the network
is being changed - the customer is being abruptly disconnected, moved
and re-connected. Possibly that is easy to overlook because the
customers physical location and their physical link to the network
doesn't change.

I think Ole observed that this is contrary to what the PD prefix's
Valid Lifetime said would be the case. The ISP supplied a PD Prefix
with a Valid Lifetime of X seconds, and then broke that promise by
abruptly changing addressing before X seconds. ISPs should be expected
to live up to their Valid Lifetime promises.

Regards,
Mark.


> Ole
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.1.10 | Report a Bug | By Email