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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 31 October 2019 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 24AD112006A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 IsSKnl_US9AM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCD3912000F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.36] (unknown [177.27.208.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10894865AF; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 19:48:02 +0100 (CET)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <m1iNIFE-0000IwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <d1b6855d-bde9-7b53-4809-0846bb9772e4@si6networks.com> <7C913CC2-938F-449C-9750-85C36EC05E38@delong.com> <48c864c7-589d-23cf-417e-6f4ec012a76a@si6networks.com> <7C142F1F-04C6-48A2-A65A-7CADD3691ECF@delong.com> <CAO42Z2yQ_6PT3nQrXGD-mKO1bjsW6V3jZ_2kNGC2x586EMiNZg@mail.gmail.com> <fdf500a5-fdd0-4ae7-e2e1-cfe9b8c0c24e@si6networks.com> <4cfa9c73-dd82-13bc-16a7-5c11ac48d03a@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z9CX5CDV=K9fnVXr=PQgCDJFM5-JM3iOHqRAnxu037Gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <f24f448a-fe82-6839-5cac-08fc5c830998@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:47:54 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2z9CX5CDV=K9fnVXr=PQgCDJFM5-JM3iOHqRAnxu037Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bGiOWAJHtmQNXysG3nUCqqeawuQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:48:09 -0000

On 27/10/19 19:37, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, 06:06 Brian E Carpenter,
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> 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: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492