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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 05/21/2016 10:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>> RFC4941 would make them break. That's an interoperability problem that,
>>> in the general case, you don't want to have, I think.
> 
> Well, my SSH sessions seem to time out anyway, because the server end
> is unhappy about long sessions with no traffic. 

The question is (*question*, not objection) is whether one can really
say that stable addresses are optional when using temp addresses only
might cause w.g., breakage of ssh sessions.


> Look, it all depends on
> the user scenario. It's pretty clear that for casual (coffee shop or
> such like) use stable addresses are pointless. But for any scenario
> with connections that might last for days, it's different.
> 
> Anyway, my point is that this is an issue with RFC4941. Since your draft
> is an if statement with no else clause:
>  if stable_address_wanted
>    then RFC7217
> issues in RFC4941 are out of scope.

*Exactly*!

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