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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

This concludes the adoption call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events”

The chairs reading of results of the adoption call is that there is agreement that 6MAN w.g. should work on this problem, but there is not support for the solutions proposed in the document.

We found that Mikael Abrahamsson email captured this well:

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/01JrxBGiMmsKuB1bkks5NIgLxSQ

 "I agree that there are problems to be solved in this space (thus I support
  adoption), but I think that the current version of the draft is way too
  overengineered and "heavy handed". I think we can achieve all the benefit
  without changing so much of current behavior.”

The authors are instructed to remove the contents from Section 4 (the section headers can stay but the contents should be replaced with “TBD”) and submit a new draft named <draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum-00> with these changes.  We will approve that as a w.g. document.

Work can then proceed to define the appropriate set of solutions, these can be added into later versions of the draft.  We urge the authors to work with the people who provided feedback to develop new text that we can build a consensus around.  Forming a design team would be a good way to proceed.

Bob & Ole




> On Jun 26, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> 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