IETF Logo Mail Archive

draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum: Algorithm (Section 4.5) in the presence of Router Lifetime=0

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 7BAB53A252A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jBAQ6ut-rGp7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6923F3A2525 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF47B8082B; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:21:41 +0200 (CEST)
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum: Algorithm (Section 4.5) in the presence of Router Lifetime=0
Message-ID: <6625284c-a841-8de4-2281-b837346527f5@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:21:21 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9nxoJBLfCr25OgNBFSUlYbfVgb0>
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:21:50 -0000

Folks/Jen,

During the 6man session Jen noted that it might be dangerous to set the 
PIO lifetimes to 0 when the Router Lifetime is set to 0.

Notes about our reasoning:

* If the prefix is advertised by multiple routers,  setting the PIO 
lifetimes to 0 will just dis-associate the prefix/addresses with this 
particular router, and the fate of this prefixes/addresses will depend 
on the other routers.

* If the router was advertised by only this router, where should packets 
be send to? In the light of RFC8028, prefixes are really tied to the 
routers that advertise them.


That said, if you could suggest how RAs with Router Lifetimes set to 0 
should be handled, we'd like to hear from you. Any suggestions for 
improvements are really welcome!

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email