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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 1/11/19 05:22, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> 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.



>> In any case, as previously noted, there are multiple scenarios
>> that may lead to this problem.
> 
> Sure, bad things can happen, and there are cases where despite the 
> best intentions you can't keep your promise. But that doesn't mean 
> everybody should go around making promises without even thinking 
> about keeping them…

Could you please point to anything that we are proposing that shouldn't
be there anyway?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492