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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 08 November 2019 15:30 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 D309712086C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:30:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 KEmPy9iDJ5cB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:30:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2a]) (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 3CEAF1208C7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com with SMTP id f6so2944569ybp.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:30:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=na+HVUjEGL3GUm8WDIoYTBwc5SAoUIZuD+KOAOTMW2w=; b=rkVIG4zUbvyPPY+x30n2h3mYstQzM2QYVF82XCozGqkTAMwvnkUxJjuKboQUpTI/lX ECtlQ9QM/5jv5IpF+BZZtzM+vWlkO4kGj/3BmoRXHqNEEt8ew0zDVbVERa34cTeGPVsk XZnsZVRfZiYs0rZinfmSiPvtnmKd1voGr4R3whDeCrVYP4+g+MOYlZAdbvqr7hxPWvzE sA9v1RIW/ji1Opgteh4HoQgQSHVi01nLeqoryYC3nrYnVhP3Oz09uEhI8oQ6apvoE3Cv G2ITd32aS3TsFKiCLdkZTaDbPq24kTPY0rLJ+AF2qj8w+fMdkB4xPvzNtpvwSojwG7eb hIcg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=na+HVUjEGL3GUm8WDIoYTBwc5SAoUIZuD+KOAOTMW2w=; b=JWWXZ6gBAr004kDlefESUxXs28kvOd2hoBKhsxT/WN43VnADoUXePgG34dePTAvrC+ Vlufoq/2kB7I9ACKfd7LdZ5Bm+HncDSUWhBoScwzFRS83FPYVlkt22BsCOYgO3SWt6aC K3Bnk7vU1nCS8iwvA3KbSCFLgpnwPECYtZFeK7/eVtt/NHagBz/H7xWahGF+pXr6abyA GaZv46gML7xJa4ozmbpuF26IJLsSQ9N01504URtL8UOgekdqwy3NX/gWACJByf/yy0ZF 6DWC2KSj2m8jt5Mm8kW9A7nghgFV1sfDfOrxkSYtuDE7FR+5qQIqqPXuhXTZ6jH8r557 vnIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWUBY9pQrwNGdeyzjB/vYo5FwwRxFi/0mHvd5JEfwsc9SA5OkSK bFgZ5jJxJ524TO5wxxqUJi2NGoC91nmhyg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzS27pmmgn/IjOsR8pxZVsk9UjPrOxv+BsbWvHFDq73bptjTkkue/R5cZlSiLKO/UXUc1Few==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:bb42:: with SMTP id b2mr9475507ybk.411.1573227037720; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.14.226.40] (mobile-166-170-54-200.mycingular.net. [166.170.54.200]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t15sm1548784ywh.70.2019.11.08.07.30.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:30:31 +0100
Message-Id: <974D7BE3-AC63-45D4-BC49-F696E3FF1158@fugue.com>
References: <m1iT57S-0000IGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <m1iT57S-0000IGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B84)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/YTJpmZyN23qIX3L9Q9okcK500ps>
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:30:50 -0000

why would we have to delay deployment?

> On Nov 8, 2019, at 15:20, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Probably there is no formal requirement for prefixes to be stable
>> across crashes and reboots[*], but there is a behaviour of the
>> client to send CONFIRM after reboot or wake-up from sleep, as
>> described in the RFC DHCPv6.
> 
> Sending a CONFIRM after a reboot requires that the client writes the
> lease to presistant storage.
> 
> As far as I know, there is no requirement for clients to have suitable
> persistent storage.
> 
> Of course, the big issue is: do we want to delay IPv6 by making IPv6
> deliberately incompatible with common IPv4 deploy strategies? If the answer
> is that we don't care about IPv6 roll-out, then indeed there is no need
> to fix this scenario.
> 
> There are other scenarios, but I believe they should be fixed in the host.
> Or not at all, if we also declare those operational errors.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops