IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X"

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 1652E12101D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.com
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 k0JSs4QKjvVr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC1C120D23 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-220-72.meetings.nanog.org (dhcp-220-72.meetings.nanog.org [199.187.220.72]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id xA1INs3k021638 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:23:55 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com xA1INs3k021638
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1572632635; bh=qXMNDAvi5rxulbcdcJyAD7QdKDAQSxPiT0XRKD27rR8=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=VcnMnIJ5+vYWEyqfq+uLX8uFt2e45pQ3/wrleqcD1osD+O3bjwPPnUr9+tC68cGOC juby47ZNxG+rCPxaHmqq6nGuKRAsi7lBMyjEVBkzjq0PKT6GPA3NME7P9yvLS5e/3U tDwoB75BZCxYHM/S5C/t09NArN7dEPhr+RDglbt8=
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Message-Id: <C9DB0F8E-D8D6-4FC7-B325-B2EB9DF1806B@delong.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4DE57380-0433-4E2C-9E4C-996763CE69D7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 11:23:54 -0700
In-Reply-To: <BA156D22-15D4-43F6-BE74-AB681F5B0BF6@fugue.com>
Cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, v6ops@ietf.org
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <94BBC308-365D-41A8-96FB-242BF63FFBF9@employees.org> <D3B1E770-F199-4605-BF78-A3637D6CDB42@fugue.com> <4288FBC0-C421-464F-9D55-7FB77AA1FA4E@employees.org> <20191101.124409.30333597.sthaug@nethelp.no> <BEC713D0-361F-4489-9D57-29781BC70B67@delong.com> <BA156D22-15D4-43F6-BE74-AB681F5B0BF6@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Fri, 01 Nov 2019 11:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rncjx7f5L1eqpRcuEUd-26dz9Oo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X"
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 18:24:16 -0000


> On Nov 1, 2019, at 9:47 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
>> I’m not even saying this is necessarily an invalid approach. We all know
>> (or at least should know) that the margins in this industry don’t support
>> the cost involved in doing things differently,
> 
> I don’t think that’s the issue.   I think the issue is that “no flash renumbering” is a nice-to-have, not a must, because the layers above layer two can adapt when layer two breaks.   We’ve done a lot of efforts to try to fix this problem at layer two, and none of them have succeeded.

Flash renumbering is NOT a layer 2 issue, it’s a layer 3 issue.

> This is not to say that making layer two as solid as possible shouldn’t be a goal; just that it is merely one of the tools we have for making the network reliable, not the /only/ tool.

Yeah, but we’re really talking more about layer 3 than layer 2 here.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email