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> Mon, 11 November 2019 23:38 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 871061200B6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:38:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 xzVtrlswzChY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:38:33 -0800 (PST)
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 2089F120090 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.32] (201-26-46-36.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.26.46.36]) (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 1C203864D7; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:38:28 +0100 (CET)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CAHL_VyBC3NbT4b-mnacU+ZmzyXus4HXcKx9ykdWJ3_a2uJCi4g@mail.gmail.com> <903CD569-A1A6-4BEC-A1FE-69706D04CF88@fugue.com> <CAO42Z2zWTediRkaF_pfot_QT9Hsf5Wdu9_77BQZjEEG5wY1jdQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <5a479b19-bf77-4c06-123f-87ed67fb5e09@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 20:35:56 -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: <CAO42Z2zWTediRkaF_pfot_QT9Hsf5Wdu9_77BQZjEEG5wY1jdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/kbbkXVhQRkuWrv5ed0OF0JKJwyE>
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 23:38:36 -0000

On 11/11/19 16:47, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 04:11 Ted Lemon, <mellon@fugue.com
> <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Nobody is expecting you to never renumber.   Well, at least I am not.
> 
> 
> I'm not either.
> 
> IPv6's Preferred and Valid lifetime mechanisms are for planned renumbering.
> 
> 
>     What I am talking about here is deliberate, opportunistic
>     renumbering. If your topology changes and you have to renumber, so
>     be it. 
> 
> 
> Unplanned "flash" renumbering due to a topology change implies an
> unplanned "flash" topology change. That's going to be a rare event, and
> ideally shouldn't ever occur, because I think it is a sign that some
> other planning hasn't been occurring.
> 
> 
> I don't really understand what is so hard about all this. 
> 
> You either provide prefix stability using a client's DUID, or you can
> use RADIUS.

As noted elsewhere, we have an RFC for DUID radnomization ("dhcp
anynimity profile", iirc). Besides, it's also understandable the
possible expectation of a user to get a new prefix upon CPE reboot (due
to privacy considerations).


-- 
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