Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 2/15/19 4:30 AM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
> /64 for each device is fine. What I'm questioning is if we really need 
> to make underlying to be something that was never meant to be if L7 
> and above is broken? I think L7 and above needs to be fixed first and 
> then changing of addresses in transport layer can have any effect. 
> Until then - let's transport packets in a way that doesn't break often 
> and make user grumpy.
>
If the problem is above layer 7, it's not in scope for the IETF. You 
might try HRPC.

In another message you said:


Nick Hilliard>> The ietf isn't going to get operator buy-in for 
mandating static v6 prefix assignments.

Jan Zorz> This is clear and understandable. Do you think they would 
buy-in the advice, that they need to honor the lifetime of a prefix to 
same DUID and give the same PD until it expires, unless there is an 
urgent network design change (moving customers to different BNG, 
emergency re-route because of outage, etc...) and at the same time make 
sure that CPE sends out RA packets with decrementing lifetime on LAN 
side, according to lifetime of PD?


Seems to me several operators have offered their opinions here. If you 
want more opinions, maybe ask a group of operators?

Lee