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 <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 08 November 2019 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 A7A251200C5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 04:47:24 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 tr5YL57Ulrbv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 04:47:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780E4120086 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 04:47:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (246.51-175-81.customer.lyse.net [51.175.81.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C6054E11B11; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:47:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C4521FBF7B; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:47:18 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <6ecec6fd-4972-66dd-7e39-9c7ba6ec291f@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:47:18 +0100
Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B958A56E-1B79-40AF-93C6-80F0831259CC@employees.org>
References: <m1iPlMZ-0000J5C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <FACE45EC-27FC-437A-A5BF-D800DF089B50@fugue.com> <837E9523-14FC-4F6C-88FC-DCC316265299@employees.org> <CAO42Z2wz1H-x1O+k-ra09V=xON7GOYM+0uHkG0d3ExnsGNuDeA@mail.gmail.com> <03aad034-4e35-743f-975d-7d3c9f29b5cc@si6networks.com> <9EC75FDA-10A6-4FDC-BB42-EFC51C6631DE@steffann.nl> <6ecec6fd-4972-66dd-7e39-9c7ba6ec291f@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZxeM4o2SKNkv_Jg1n0XXuBhqIJo>
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 12:47:25 -0000

>>>> I think Ole observed that this is contrary to what the PD 
>>>> prefix's Valid Lifetime said would be the case. The ISP supplied 
>>>> a PD Prefix with a Valid Lifetime of X seconds, and then broke 
>>>> that promise by abruptly changing addressing before X seconds. 
>>>> ISPs should be expected to live up to their Valid Lifetime 
>>>> promises.
>>> 
>>> "Hope" doesn't make networks run properly.
>> 
>> This isn't "Hope", this is breaking promises, and that does break 
>> networks. If you can't at least trust that promises are intended to 
>> be kept then you have no network at all...
> 
> They are intended to be kept, but at times s* happens e.g., CPE routers
> don't crash and reboot on purpose.

This comment worries me.
That a CE reboots is _not_ the problem, nor does it cause the problem.

Cheers,
Ole