Re: Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"

Tim Chown <tjc.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 28 June 2020 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338213A0E71 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Hr4Tm5F4C770 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FDA53A0E70 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id l17so13546378wmj.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=CHy+63O2xDWiKUuejSyAury5x8vtZhDMxJak41Wqg0I=; b=HI/yFxmNEIvr5i+NUBNR+tzsQYRioBDsPJ/N1N6qRC5s00/WEjsocpa7QXqUPeXDtu FoIqyMpeGRcR02Ccu3LwqDiW+zzjTYBw0ym49uxVNqpLNiO1FitcDgMST0AsfFy1M+CZ jZ5Hlg9DdmwCSRm0w1uUt9XaGOZcDi+o+mqcUBEZ4Gqw2C42NAHWe4MkwzR0qaTsAgOb 2XAulTN04ni1bDVVHZhjW1g9+p3NbFBo54BIZKVp7bc8PxEoBWFOYYko3/yy/ldhRNws nMpZI6xePq09KPFYuwYCso6cawDGdQirh1y9S459phJG2Odi34FyGXJrBp9YakcXeApd P4Ww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=CHy+63O2xDWiKUuejSyAury5x8vtZhDMxJak41Wqg0I=; b=BthB1C9+XSDeAmVZHqlFZS4mJYQkGDokMgIdMXM9W8I4/hiutQBpPZMlEdaKLf3Zf1 331tucVIpUsy0CgY+BcwHu6VMuV973/3CSEv8EqObDNKFSuVaHXvJNxlu+L14XpYFdJv thycH45XRatuUIRq8RIa/nd9nzV3oQJ1eyDAuns/du15guQeVmwE83lS/DJGQ9lAtHPw /UYZ4TAwttAbOmyq4gXek6UZyHW2P+FX4pOb0QTxRLO+jAL7jP5Z1IKqXpJE7cul/hmj cj2SHwVQWmD9FSC+K34sZMJ3IMbS5Ibkn5n1UCG0u76u7IDX8d8IEuquWuTSaNvs3B8q VHtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531mGL+ue6lqqSp2S2xJzFiM3gGDZGS9KWgve3X6mwvJhgEODi4w lYxv96r26Xs5iEsCsHgdE50=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0gz99fMQuWxffrAbhLl+UMA7svJqcCxawqUp325nGmduXwN7GAgrrDgRDS/52zOR7XGddPw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f007:: with SMTP id a7mr13676213wmb.103.1593377170673; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (tchowndsl.claranet.co.uk. [212.188.254.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n14sm25106687wro.81.2020.06.28.13.46.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"
From: Tim Chown <tjc.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC295D49-5981-41C3-B4DB-E064D66616CE@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 21:46:09 +0100
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BA262BEA-4E3C-47A6-813B-13F3E61EBE68@gmail.com>
References: <CC295D49-5981-41C3-B4DB-E064D66616CE@gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-o0uGiQkS5MUKlRVgG1FasoDloo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 20:46:14 -0000

I support adoption.

> On 27 Jun 2020, at 00:35, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This message starts a two week 6MAN call on adopting:
> 
> Title:          Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events
> Authors:        F. Gont, J. Zorz, R. Patterson
> File Name:      draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-08
> Document date:  2020-05-18
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum
> 
> as a working group item. Substantive comments and statements of support for adopting this document should be directed to the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This adoption call will end on 10 July 2020.
> 
> There has been a lot of discussion on this draft, the chairs have some concerns with this document being adopted, but wanted the w.g. to express its opinion.  Our concerns include:
> 
> This document proposes significant changes to SLAAC to fix what could be seen as an implementation problem in some edge routers.  This will affect all IPv6 nodes, not only the ones communicating with these edge routers.  This part of IPv6 is a mature standard.   It is not clear we should modify all IPv6 hosts to deal with one corner case that may break other things allowed by the standard.
> 
> The changes proposed will make SLAAC more active, the changes include:
> 
> o Reducing the default Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime of PIOs
> o Caps the received Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime of PIOs.
> o Frequent retransmission of configuration information
> o Routers send all options in RA messages
> 
> Some additional questions for the w.g. to consider:
> o Are there better approaches to address the underlying issue?
> o Do the proposed changes work in all deployments?
> o Are some proposed changes worth advancing even if the entirety may not be? If so, which ones?
> 
> We would like the w.g. to consider and comment on these issues when responding to this adoption call.
> 
> Bob & Ole
> 6man co-chairs
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------