Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X"

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 9324B120122 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 01H7CScsQwhc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 7B266120019 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id x21so13627372qto.12 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=vhW1NiCSshmuUmCP3eESwdo580DuZaAZNg+1o4T8Pgo=; b=k0kwOap9dlrIWck1nFBljacEUyyWG27Fha7Wce738xMCCWtmKa4GuXVXqX5qPljJoJ fz4xjxiuhaodeztUPM1ZQJa4/qj4eymG3Jmvfh0dRmfi0FcvvIpsfERHfORgECvWRJDe ocHw7BREKlZ0zjqbpKSNzd6+EL5pWSI53iJkGC5ZoznvxGecz8QbwVxTJAAFQtOE0aCh FTSdjLWrCAN4CzOjDObACZTYYUcB1WmwOD339B8IOWZgZVZM4Jv89BJHB0At8v7H6Klf OZJ0rUjeeVwfktlK4AnvDdiLLeZM91efYHFJhdtrSbneGEYjdFEkA1o8Fnu+F9KpA2ij 1GTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=vhW1NiCSshmuUmCP3eESwdo580DuZaAZNg+1o4T8Pgo=; b=ALTzxPLRZbK183JNnpKJ07szNRBYl+nFiVWFKSdr3OJMXV93gauz/auB3C311B5+6K rLTvBb3/zEVcaXuxf35Gck8Mu90Px4NFfMgumELb6V1Nc22d4J2Mbx8e9HansHGSoRB4 tsvm87gIKj8FDW2QQKTZPlZub/Z05ac0NXfItVH9HGXlUpDuvV7bK5s9KnzETLv8x/uk NoV9s8eXYd2cN4s8vnshEVqswwl3BMq6JMv9XEZe2fO+Re/tNGD6NkqSoe5Sr3JC1rC5 n1+xC+8WZX6Vp9R5W57SM8cPsdCbjY4NADl9xxrUfczSf7ZVDQGgiZ0lJW+i+FH2MNED iA0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU5IL6asCp/osyuVoYB5ivZSDCRlfyXysC7/v3Otsi0kSnq0NA9 TlqWASXExbq8TuZra0P3UvadC483ncocLg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzyiFgLIzJz4WvfNVRSYK8glq2OlgmW4WsgU5yRZ3L3P3V/s8OAauBGHeQ7bJZWwfWSbJOcng==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:e42:: with SMTP id j2mr217466qti.131.1572626868349; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:cef:776b:2643:f7b7? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:cef:776b:2643:f7b7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a28sm3698730qkn.126.2019.11.01.09.47.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <BA156D22-15D4-43F6-BE74-AB681F5B0BF6@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D86FCE74-3695-404B-82ED-F43703272D9E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:47:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <BEC713D0-361F-4489-9D57-29781BC70B67@delong.com>
Cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, v6ops@ietf.org
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
References: <94BBC308-365D-41A8-96FB-242BF63FFBF9@employees.org> <D3B1E770-F199-4605-BF78-A3637D6CDB42@fugue.com> <4288FBC0-C421-464F-9D55-7FB77AA1FA4E@employees.org> <20191101.124409.30333597.sthaug@nethelp.no> <BEC713D0-361F-4489-9D57-29781BC70B67@delong.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/RaGNt_RSY_T6kz8q9TMg9XBxCDI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X"
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 16:47:52 -0000

On Nov 1, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> I’m not even saying this is necessarily an invalid approach. We all know
> (or at least should know) that the margins in this industry don’t support
> the cost involved in doing things differently,

I don’t think that’s the issue.   I think the issue is that “no flash renumbering” is a nice-to-have, not a must, because the layers above layer two can adapt when layer two breaks.   We’ve done a lot of efforts to try to fix this problem at layer two, and none of them have succeeded.

This is not to say that making layer two as solid as possible shouldn’t be a goal; just that it is merely one of the tools we have for making the network reliable, not the /only/ tool.