IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 11 November 2019 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 3822812011F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:47:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 0K-D5MDCZKfu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:47:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55E3F12004D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:47:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1iU5Lh-0000LOC; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:47:01 +0100
Message-Id: <m1iU5Lh-0000LOC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1iT57S-0000IGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <974D7BE3-AC63-45D4-BC49-F696E3FF1158@fugue.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:30:31 +0100 ." <974D7BE3-AC63-45D4-BC49-F696E3FF1158@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:47:00 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/XDEtGD3C4VttplcAJQeGMlLQHDg>
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 08:47:07 -0000

In your letter dated Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:30:31 +0100 you wrote:
>why would we have to delay deployment?

Assume that an ISP has a setup with IPv4 that results in flash renumbering.
On IPv4 that is masked by NAT in the CPE.

On IPv6 that results in downtime for the customer because the problem is
not masked.

So the ISP delays rolling out IPv6 until either the problem is fixed in
IPv6 or, less likely, the ISP has a chance to re-engineer their setup to
avoid flash renumbering.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email