Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by September 13, 2023

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Bernie Volz <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Maybe if consenus is for a PIO flag (when A bit set) that if set, say’s
    > don’t send server “global scope” SLAAC address notifications would be
    > something to consider. That means existing routers don’t have to change
    > for clients to send notifications (as flag would be clear - meaning to

If only there were an RA option which was easy to set without recompiling
router code, and which could be extended trivially with minimal agony about
chewing up scarce resources.

Maybe: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option/ ??
   :-) :-) :-)

    > And yes, I suspect that lots of servers (and maybe even some relays)
    > will log about the unknown packets and could clutter up logs. It may be

surely, this is true of any new DHCPv6 option, and given that we already
support vendor options.  We even say:

}   Clients, relay agents, and servers MUST NOT discard messages that
}   contain unknown options (or instances of vendor options with unknown
}   enterprise-number values).  THESE SHOULD BE IGNORED AS IF THEY WERE
}   NOT PRESENT.  This is critical to provide for future extensions of
}   DHCP.

(emphasis mine)

    > for the registration message is worth it — though minimal support of
    > the message by logging details of the notification request and sending
    > a reply may not be significantly more work and would eliminate logging
    > retransmissions except when a client fails to receive reply.”

That's one way to implement it.
But it requires action, and I think you are concerned about already deployed
code.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide