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 <> Fri, 01 November 2019 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84822120118 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eorEUoR0jc5N for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DCFE12002E for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o49so12693490qta.7 for <>; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=gPvWg0kQKFq6KNjwOVGDcRvcgqGkTpviqnoCco8VYo4=; b=jR4t10qYsPcty5oLFVPmZRrcilNgyRvC1jrJ+yUyMrT/PEWAj4FRp134zM7UnPNXnc iwpKJk2vGa0g73Mw4DRT9PN34CkZxjgi1bkSSvoKJTLxqW5XrGy/1pQ3+qwc+HJ5fFlJ 46HVhY9jr8i7/8pbXicwHrXEwYUIZNw16cf8UwvH88o3tmCE4sdRKXH6R6OUl1EiRW7U d1BwZ7qKVtfoANKTIitMzyg7S7oyEzSnzbDIOtSlEfoskmm0bCaOpDMmVX4lTSzNe+8Q sCsJTpNKuQYBTidIjdoG0jJv2qHFr65JRzZDfsLDuGge7/Q9uwiRyaHwbWuaxHGNtkN0 IT6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=gPvWg0kQKFq6KNjwOVGDcRvcgqGkTpviqnoCco8VYo4=; b=Qbm/yXypT2xygun8qj81oOIC8cPd9B0cKDe6mPnRtwKj2XU2dWzrgrWpQd7JgSCSXE YQs/Ri7BYfYBDq+PYv7nwqjfcz+RriH2uzD1y2pEhNct793HLUNoiO+XhmilnluWwAVz DSb00+A7pDcMlVjSocoVlgAQERgRPxPlhWPGkXENsgDkbXbkgFHYFCT8Kb8V99Ux2uwf EgXNq2cv+QqMXE9ggmK8lrezhJ7dtnTjzsX0yuG/oUknnzXcqDoQ9YwOqJZHYQ/Ojt/I davYnG9d/m5o8Dh+g+/RxhatueGCQVNeQ+YGsfG/PTrQfLlnvaDvh/OjLD8LlZ49QBBD JjCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXff7kEeGcUDM0Vx3+z+4KMhjpSQY6xY5aRbXsPn9lM4tX7oON4 2//ZchcG/hZUxeEZ/PHACoBA8Kb3xwI04g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw4wVbuI8ETuBO+OHCCIV0WBEuve1GM55WldpV8SVPCsMcmw3AwuMaYgzeUHKra13ZQxqZvFQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:f35:: with SMTP id e50mr10595802qtk.39.1572611195637; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:186c:1ff3:ea8d:a057? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:186c:1ff3:ea8d:a057]) by with ESMTPSA id i4sm2322987qtp.57.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0720C975-4470-4D2E-A4C7-6182628FF519"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 08:26:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Philip Homburg <>,
To: Ole Troan <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
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-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 12:26:38 -0000

On Nov 1, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Ole Troan <> wrote:
> Can you please read my message one more time?

I’m not seeing whatever it is that you think I missed.   It may help to realize that “long time” is a subjective term, and that “what the IETF has specified” is not always “what people do in practice.”   But beyond that I think I did read and comprehend what you said, so I’m don’t know why you’re asking me to read it again.  As a general rule, rather than making a broad request like this, it may help to expose whatever mental model produced the conclusion that I hadn’t fully read or understood what you wrote.   If I failed to understand it, asking me to read it again isn’t likely to fix that.