Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 27/10/19 19:37, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, 06:06 Brian E Carpenter,
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 28-Oct-19 05:29, Fernando Gont wrote:
>     ...
>     > Robustness has a lot to do with being able to gracefully handle
>     the case
>     > when others screw up.
> 
> 
>     This. We can't make the world perfect, but we can make individual
>     components
>     that expect imperfection.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not what I said, as it is implying that I said there is no need
> for robustness.
> 
> Robustness suffers from the law of diminishing returns. At some point
> the cost to design and implement robustness exceeds the either the
> likelihood it will be needed or the benefit it returns if needs to be used.

Could you please argue against any specific text in our document?




> Sugar is sometimes poured into the fuel tanks of cars, which will
> destroy the engine. It is not common and is done maliciously. If
> robustness should be universal, does that mean car engines should be
> made impervious to sugar, at great expense to everybody, despite the
> need for that robustness being rare?
> 
> Some ISPs are shifting the cost and consequences of their design
> decision, which they can change, onto the IETF, CPE vendors and host
> implementers, and indirectly their customers'. Are they willing to pay
> these other parties to fix a problem that they are both causing and
> could fix themselves?

Is there anything that we are recommending CPEs to do that shouldn't be
there (anyway) to comply with the semantics of the protocols?

That said, I will repeat that the home network/cpe case is only one of
the scenarios in which this problem may be faced.

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