Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-04.txt)

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

In your letter dated Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:33:39 -0300 you wrote:
>Yes, this is noted in the I-D where we say LTA_IVALID_DEFAULT could be 
>1800 seconds if we wanted to be more conservative.

Please write drafts that actually work when implemented. If you know that
the values in your draft can causes failures why put them in?

>1) Keep "as is", since in order for this to happen, this woudl require:
>   + that implementations use a non-defualt value for MaxRtrAdvInterval, 
>*and*

That is specifically allowed

>   + that they spread PIOs among multiple RA messages, *and*

Also allowed

>   + one of such messages with PIOs get lost

It is safe to assume that every once in a while a RA gets losts.

>2) Increase LTA_INVALID_DEFAULT to 1800, as noted in the I-D. I wouldn't 
>mind, although this comes at the expense of reduced responsiveness

If the interval is 1800, then LTA_INVALID_DEFAULT has to be 3600
to handle one lost packet. 

>3) Keep the current default timer, but not that an implementation may 
>want to send a unicast RA to the router when expiration is imminent 
>(this is probably in RFC4861, already)

Sending unicast RAs is way more complex than my algorithm, so I don't see
the point.