IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Sat, 19 September 2020 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 6C7DC3A0B10 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, 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 VpVsmaKzEIaR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4112E3A09A8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [IPv6:2a02:20c8:5921:100:cda1:c1bb:8036:74cb]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0F274E11B3B; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:29:58 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-85FADF8F-B831-4198-A18C-64CE88A1463A"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 02:29:54 +0200
Message-Id: <D7EB9581-4B28-4977-8879-26B6E97F3353@employees.org>
References: <3DD43BA8-C1B9-4721-A02F-48F1754883AC@fugue.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3DD43BA8-C1B9-4721-A02F-48F1754883AC@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A373)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/cbfExUQ5d4AmM8ErXfhXA8bPKaw>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
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: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:30:00 -0000

Ted,

Why don’t you write a draft on how you would like flash renumbering to work. 

Ole

> On 19 Sep 2020, at 00:15, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 18, 2020, at 5:21 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> Corner case because Service Providers generally do not flash renumber their customers. 
> 
> Just saying that way implies so many assumptions that really aren’t general. E.g.:
> 
> - The ISP can never have a reason to flash renumber, or so rarely that if it blows up your network that’s fine (when is that ever fine?)
> - All of the boxes between you and your ISP are carefully curated so that nothing ever goes wrong that results in a theoretically-preventable flash renumber event.
> - The network topology is completely stable.
> - Your uplink is wired, so there’s no possibility of RFI forcing a renumbering event
> - It’s not many hops to the backbone, and all of the intermediate links are reliable and stable
> - Reliability in the on-site infrastructure is nice-to-have, not required (light switches don’t have to work)
> 
> Etc.
> 
> I think that when this position is put forward as a sort of universal ground truth, it is actively harmful to end users.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email