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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I believe this is an important topic and the draft should be adopted by the WG.

This question:

> o Do the proposed changes work in all deployments?

is very important and I don't think we can ever know the answer. So in my opinion the whole document needs to be treated as a SHOULD, with clear understanding of what SHOULD means in the IETF: 
  "there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course."

I'd like to see a clear statement about this at the beginning of section 4 ("Improvements to Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)") and I suggest that the single MUST in the text should really be a SHOULD.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 27-Jun-20 11:35, Bob Hinden 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
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>