Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt>

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 05/21/2016 09:48 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On 22 May 2016 at 01:16, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 05/19/2016 10:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 20/05/2016 12:48, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Let's all always keep in mind that the current text of the draft says that
>>>> on every network, hosts SHOULD configure an IPv6 address that never changes
>>>> until the end of time. I think that recommendation is irresponsible.
>>>
>>> Thus, I'm continuing to run my laptop with only an RFC4941 address for a few
>>> days to see whether it has any negative impact at all. So far, so good.
>>
>> This is a key test: Open a bunch of ssh sessions, and check if they
>> break overnight.
>>
>> RFC4941 would make them break. That's an interoperability problem that,
>> in the general case, you don't want to have, I think.
>>
> 
> I think there would be a lot of very persistent connections (e.g.,
> last weeks and months) within Enterprise networks that aren't typical
> on the Internet e.g., long lived connections between database clients
> and servers, where the database client in this example is part of the
> application middle tier.

*Exactly*. S, the question is: can we really flag stable addresses as
optional when such connections might break as a result of that? aybe we
should note that if we flag them as optional?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492