Re: I-D Action: draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-02.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 10/3/20 07:34, Philip Homburg wrote:
> In your letter dated Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:48:34 -0300 you wrote:
>> That is correct. I'd say, though, that the guess is based on empirical
>> evidence. I haven't seen any implementation that intentionally splis the
>> contents of RAs among multiple RAs.
> 
> I'm very much against a standard where one part of the standard imposes
> no limits, and then another part implictly assumes that there is infact
> a limit.

I'm not necessarily arguing against this, but this happens all over the 
place. e.g., there is no limit regarding how many addresses a host can 
configure. But in practice, there are. That said, I see your point, and 
we'll work



> If your code needs a limit on the number of RAs uses by a router to
> announces all prefixes, then this draft should explictly set such a limit.

At least the deprecation part, is an optimization.



[....]
>> #1 is of utmost importance. But if the algorithm fails, you just
>> unpreferred the address. -- Yes, there might be undesirable oscillations
>> of the preferred address,but nothing has brokon down.
> 
> If the host knows a stale address then deprecating a good address may cause
> the host to use the stale address which does break things.

Could you please elaborate?



>> #2 is what might cause breakage. In such case you can increase
>> LTA_RAS_INVALID, at the expense of maintaining potentially-invalid
>> addresses for longer.
> 
> You cannot expect a random user of a phone to increase LTA_RAS_INVALID,
> the draft doesn't even say that LTA_RAS_INVALID needs be configurable, so it
> may be hardcoded in the OS.

What I was meaning is that we, as a WG, can set such variables to 
whatever value we think fits.

I realize that the draft does not say those should be configurable. We 
will make this clear in the next rev.

(The bottom-line is that I'm debating the document and of course open to 
changes and improvements)



>> This is the first time I see you objecting to the algorithm, but my
>> memory might be failing. Could you provide a ref to any previous post,
>> such that if there were other things that you raised, we can try to
>> address them? (and also to figure out what happened with my mail system).
> 
> I found a message where you respond to me raising the issue:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_oe8GMNO70uxaBYWcJQgtX869MY/

To be honest, I didn't remember such exchange, but have re-read it. -- I 
will come back with more on this in a later email...

Thanks!

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