Re: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Heuristics to deprecate stale information

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Right. I think this is the correct behavior.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 17:48 Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Ted,
>
> On 12/8/22 15:59, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > Actually the case I’m thinking of is where the router goes down, and
> > another router just announces another prefix. In this case,
> > following Eduard’s heuristic, hosts on the link would immediately
> > stop using addresses on the old prefix. Although actually I think he
> > said they’d deprecate that prefix, not unconfigure it, so maybe I’m
> > worried over nothing. In that case, existing connections would
> > continue to function, and when the router came back, the prefix would
> > be un-deprecated.
>
> I believe that:
>
> * while a router is still valid (i.e., Router Lifetime >= 0) (if the
>    advertised Router Lifetime was != 0), then hosts should keep the
>    addresses
>
> * When a router becomes unreachable (NUD), Next-Hop determination should
>    be performed again, *and* anything advertised by this router should be
>    unpreferred/deprecated (unless the same info has been advertised by
>    another on-link router)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494
>