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

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:50 AM Tim Chown <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 29 Jun 2020, at 08:49, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Yup. Like I said, most of the document consists of simple tweaks that in many cases are already allowed by existing standards. That definitely seems publishable.
>
> I don’t think adoption means we would include everything in the document in the final version that is published.  If “most of the document” contains advice you think is publishable, then should we not adopt and work on consensus on what is in the final version?
>
> I do agree that data on evidence of the problem would be welcomed.  The user experience may be protected by other mechanisms such as happy eyeballs.
>
> > Another much simpler approach that could be taken to solve this problem is to recommend that if a host receives an RA where previous prefix(es) - or more in general, previous options - have disappeared, then it should attempt to re-check that information's validity in some way (e.g., by attempting off-link connectivity).
>
> That would seem to be one good bit of advice to include.

<no hats>

I'll repeat my previous recommendation that a host can unicast an NS
from any of its GUAs in a suspected lost PIO for the router's
link-local address to the link-local address of the router.  Treat it
like NUD -- RRUD, return routing unreachability detection.

Active measures, I feel, may prove more reliable.

And an alternative to timer manipulation might be 6724 policy table
manipulation (e.g. something like add an entry for the PIO with
precedence "precedenceOf(::/0) - 1" and/or a new label, given the
table in 6724#2.1)?  I have not spent enough time thinking through the
implications of this, though.

</>