IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 13:41 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 2A8C112013A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 06:41:50 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 GCvv5em2AgZM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 06:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D191200CE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 06:41:47 -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 C11DF868BE; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 14:41:44 +0100 (CET)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.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> <m1iQUNM-0000KTC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2zH__Gm6JNY_G9LPgzNFVnkoS3WM6d99tYo6a+2maOQXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <e0df28d8-1fef-b5df-15d3-70511e6b56df@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:29:10 -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: <CAO42Z2zH__Gm6JNY_G9LPgzNFVnkoS3WM6d99tYo6a+2maOQXA@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/bjNvtEtbGK_BtKEE_P8vnXepp-o>
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, 01 Nov 2019 13:41:50 -0000

On 1/11/19 08:12, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, 21:42 Philip Homburg, <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com
> <mailto:pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>> wrote:
> 
>     > > "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...
> 
>     Maybe somebody can do a text analysis and show which promise is broken.
> 
>     The typical case is a CPE rebooting, requesting a prefix using
>     DHCPv6 and
>     getting a different prefix from before.
> 
> 
> It shouldn't be. That's why clients have DHCP Unique Identifiers (DUIDs)
> that should be persistent across client restarts (or CPE reboots).

RFC7844 might lead to non-stable DUIDs. You might argue that that in
some scenarios you wouldn't do this (non-portable CPEs), but in others
(portable ones) you might.

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email