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 <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

>> Can you please read my message one more time?
> 
> I’m not seeing whatever it is that you think I missed.   It may help to realize that “long time” is a subjective term, and that “what the IETF has specified” is not always “what people do in practice.”   But beyond that I think I did read and comprehend what you said, so I’m don’t know why you’re asking me to read it again.  As a general rule, rather than making a broad request like this, it may help to expose whatever mental model produced the conclusion that I hadn’t fully read or understood what you wrote.   If I failed to understand it, asking me to read it again isn’t likely to fix that.

You said:
"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?”"

In reply to:
  "(4) Continue to delegate prefix A with a lifetime expiring on November 11. On November 4th start also delegating prefix B with a lifetime expiring December 31st 2022.
   On November 11th, stop advertising prefix A."


(4) is the definition of graceful renumbering. What makes you conclude "then we just assume that people will do whatever they want"?
(especially since your options 1-3 are exactly that, people do whatever they want...)

Ole