SLAAC in renumbering events

Sun Mar 10 16:54:52 UTC 2019

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 3:32 AM Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com> wrote:

> If you follow the 6man working group of the IETF you may have seen a
> bunch of emails on this topic, on a thread resulting from an IETF
> Internet-Draft we published with Jan Žorž about "Reaction of Stateless
> Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Renumbering Events" (Available at:
>
> https://github.com/fgont/draft-slaac-renum/raw/master/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-02.txt
>  )
>

Hi Fernando,

I'm a little confused here. I can certainly see why the default timeout of
30 days is a problem, but doesn't the host lose the route from the RA
sooner? Why would an IPv6 host originate connections from an address for
which it has no corresponding route? Isn't that broken source address
selection?

I'd love to see that addressed in your draft.

Obviously having the router always explicitly expire the old addresses is a
non-starter. There's no certainty that the router knows what the old
addresses were, that it's even the same piece of equipment or that all the
hosts will see the packet if it does manage to send one.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190310/093b8b6b/attachment.html>