Re: [v6ops] [Witarea] Re: How to make an elegant IPv4 outage

I mean, the original intended solution for the problem you've stated is the DHCP leasequery and bulk leasequery functionality. It sounds like you're saying that doesn't work, though?

The point of a lifetime promise is to say "we aren't going to yank this back from you until T, but please renew at .001T" to satisfy your reasoning for why DHCP leases are kept short—to refresh data in intermediate routers.

> On Jun 12, 2026, at 14:11, Ole Trøan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Sounds like dhcp needs a zone refresh timer. 
> 
> Is it something DHCPv6 and IPv6 ND doesn’t need it is more timers and «lifetime» promises. 
> 
> Would be interesting to know if any of those are used operationally as was intended. 
> 
> Ole
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026, at 12:54 PM, Ole Trøan wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tim,
>>> 
>>>> Well, that’s 6man, this is v6ops.  If bad operational procedures are followed, we should highlight those with pointers to the good.  Doesn’t have to name names I suppose.
>>> 
>>> You could. But it’s a world of inconsistency. DHCPv6 PD lifetimes was recommended to mirror the lifetime of the customer contract. But then you got into issues with state maintenance on intermediate routers, and ended up with short lifetimes, so RR has no visibility into the actual lifetime of the prefix. 
>>> Then providers raised the issue of rebalancing customers between eg CMTSs, where maintaining the same prefix has a cost.
>>> And I am sure a desire for tiered products. 
>>> A combination of ipv6 protocols, business practices and operational reality.
>>> 
>>> Ole
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/06/2026, 10:48, "Ole Trøan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps we need to start draft-v6ops-ipv6-dinosaurs and start to name and shame such organisations and what they’re doing wrong… polite but objective critique and pointers in the doc to best practice.
>>>> 
>>>> It may produce a better outcome if we instead focus on fixing the gaps in ipv6.  
>>>> 
>>>> Ole
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/06/2026, 21:03, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Just got off the phone with a very large ISP after a failed attempt to get an IPv6 address.
>>>> 
>>>> Turns out that I can have IPv6 but only dynamic and only if I am on dynamic IPv4. I cannot get IPv6 for my service with static IPv4 addresses.
>>>> 
>>>> Seems to me that we are still a long way away from being able to shutter IPv4 completely.
>>>> 
>>>> What I have not yet tried but should is trying to use the IPv6 mapping of my IPv4 addresses.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list -- [email protected]
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> 
>>