Mitigating the effects of SLAAC renumbering events (draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum)

Vasilenko Eduard vasilenko.eduard at
Wed Aug 31 14:13:32 UTC 2022

Such router behavior is completely legal by ND RFC.
It does not matter that real routers implementations do not do this.
We should think that they do because the standard permits it.

And the RA in the chain may be lost.
It is better to attach information about completeness to the information itself.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont at] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at>; nanog at
Subject: Re: Mitigating the effects of SLAAC renumbering events (draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum)


On 31/8/22 09:43, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi all,
> The router could split information between RAs (and send it at 
> different intervals). It may be difficult to guess what is stale and 
> what is just "not in this RA".

You ask the router, and the router responds.

If you want to consider the case where the router intentionally splits the options into multiple packets (which does not exist in practice), AND the link is super lossy, you just increase the number of retransmissions.

There's no guessing.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont at
PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494

More information about the NANOG mailing list