IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 18 September 2020 22:14 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 EA6FF3A098E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:14:47 -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, 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 XmqHapDlPPGp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (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 6752A3A098D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id n10so6469279qtv.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:14:46 -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=uTrerY2b0cXvnZljQK952cSpvsB+CzWHt4Uek9XVMZA=; b=c1/8T5Z9nRQJ8XFMeJkwAEWS+t2R4uNrCGlKQt4JMrwMUUiwJSBukyQbrkCGtiXiCp AfeIwfFM2kM92kkCR5y4UgaB+wECGa7k2hd8e/hHaZJz3FTp/BWLOlDYaggC7Qa1DGSG dHxf0NXrnbA76S83W30zpVe5yr30BZ1xvj/qeZxDiq/Vx+t9AV5G09QOHI47XbSSQuJK 0uqS5Od6Onc2pNnIP3luxijU1wy5491m4l74YJYvm+Z1VHGRlg6N8nfS/Xc6L0zhU11w 4tDSPQ6ReEHEkBeo4NUmlE32NoYXcnYblnebEvA4ElY7JPOFuGXf8+eQ4Hx/baFLP2UP 8oAw==
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=uTrerY2b0cXvnZljQK952cSpvsB+CzWHt4Uek9XVMZA=; b=GR/tiIUUUAhpmNMnER/vDCyCpVcYOVGcSFIoJxE6cgkLIDYE3MbUJOFz+9fkBxlYAW FkLmV1aQd2LaB+DFDj0bTEST4yTN20fIYFwSCPggn5UQ0jw8kYkQuhIRTtNHVe+bRigl nO7q4XLixdRLCeupUtlpmacKL6pVvTR6evF5BtDsjCqJN+nnwdVnwHnieeD5PmusBmvL 5jEOtdRalLfbCqrIE2dVcQd/SVI7gi35C9H/1bTzt8rLYHeLglQiLDp6Aasby1pO1Vld NwZ5Zj/PdydEr4xWCMhF+R7VftD4X+OV/ybAQK0csPr72W0Gc4aA1qsohWVbt1kjFY8A F8Vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532MOP1MQHqb0nI9EGmEdwwuQYWMlW+22V/AeBe6mYy5qdmiXq6c 3aSE+lIO1wj5FjYtNrMxsPDVKg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7nYAXz75iWAVL/2uWVjoLRoFyCrgwnYRPGBg5KMZWDvHBkDgFCQG7xs69/RBFweH5HiZoEg==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:35f9:: with SMTP id d54mr9256138qte.376.1600467285334; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e13sm3045098qtr.85.2020.09.18.15.14.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <3DD43BA8-C1B9-4721-A02F-48F1754883AC@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5C8A867C-63F6-4226-999D-458CA8C1E388"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.0.3.2.33\))
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 18:14:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1A960746-3BF4-4238-B314-1CA9198D452D@employees.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <f0d9ce6b-f917-cd3c-cd0d-e460d175ee6c@gmail.com> <1A960746-3BF4-4238-B314-1CA9198D452D@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.0.3.2.33)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/WkdlUsCTGeQV1f-m9-SFGyogwSM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
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, 18 Sep 2020 22:14:48 -0000

On Sep 18, 2020, at 5:21 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> Corner case because Service Providers generally do not flash renumber their customers. 

Just saying that way implies so many assumptions that really aren’t general. E.g.:

- The ISP can never have a reason to flash renumber, or so rarely that if it blows up your network that’s fine (when is that ever fine?)
- All of the boxes between you and your ISP are carefully curated so that nothing ever goes wrong that results in a theoretically-preventable flash renumber event.
- The network topology is completely stable.
- Your uplink is wired, so there’s no possibility of RFI forcing a renumbering event
- It’s not many hops to the backbone, and all of the intermediate links are reliable and stable
- Reliability in the on-site infrastructure is nice-to-have, not required (light switches don’t have to work)

Etc.

I think that when this position is put forward as a sort of universal ground truth, it is actively harmful to end users.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email