Re: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Heuristics to deprecate stale information

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Ted,

On 12/8/22 15:59, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Actually the case I’m thinking of is where the router goes down, and 
> another router just announces another prefix. In this case,
> following Eduard’s heuristic, hosts on the link would immediately
> stop using addresses on the old prefix. Although actually I think he
> said they’d deprecate that prefix, not unconfigure it, so maybe I’m
> worried over nothing. In that case, existing connections would
> continue to function, and when the router came back, the prefix would
> be un-deprecated.

I believe that:

* while a router is still valid (i.e., Router Lifetime >= 0) (if the
   advertised Router Lifetime was != 0), then hosts should keep the
   addresses

* When a router becomes unreachable (NUD), Next-Hop determination should
   be performed again, *and* anything advertised by this router should be
   unpreferred/deprecated (unless the same info has been advertised by
   another on-link router)

Thoughts?

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