Re: Errata for RFC4862

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 09 January 2017 11:37 UTC

Subject: Re: Errata for RFC4862
To: otroan@employees.org, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
References: <CAO42Z2xH9wqXKFjtAbv6isQ3cG1=FNUmkNFq2DGJdqj9BFDVaQ@mail.gmail.com> <E459F5B0-D088-4D74-B92A-9A8671249716@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <7294d455-f526-6832-be62-b5a2d1473b7e@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:36:55 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E459F5B0-D088-4D74-B92A-9A8671249716@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ImcYfQTqpp-Uw2bKA180qAt8OjM>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

On 01/09/2017 05:53 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> 
> The current text is crafted both to allow renumbering and to support
> scenarios where the RA lifetimes are short. I.e. under two hours. 
> Your proposed changes appear to lock the lifetimes to no less than
> two hours. Is that correctly understood?
> 
> Btw, this might not be appropriate for an erratum, but I do also
> think we should revisit this behaviour. 

+1.

Note, however, that there are other values to be sanity-checked in a
similar way.

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