Re: SLAAC protocol improvements for flash renumbering (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-02.txt)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > On 20/2/20 07:50, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> Hi, thank you for this.
    >>
    >> I want to suggest that you move the section 4.3/4.4 to
    >> draft-gont-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum, but I can't find this document to be
    >> sure.  Maybe you are still posting it.
    >>
    >> Then, this document is all about updates to the Host side only.

    > Note: Section 4.4 is a host-side update. It does benefit from the
    > router-side change proposed in Section 4.3, though.

Yes, I think that the update should be split between which end needs to
implement it.

    >> I like section 4.4, and I really think it's actually the meat of this
    >> document.  I think that the title of the document should be less about
    >> Flash Renumbering, and just about "Improved Host Behaviour for Router
    >> Advertisements" or some such.

    > I'd agree that most of the meet is in Section 4.4. That said, at the
    > end of the day the goal is to improve the behaviour of SLAAC in
    > renumbering scenarios... and doing the right thing at routers does help
    > a bit. So I'd rather keep the router parts, too.

The issue is that I want to have a separate checkbox on routers
and hosts for whether they include the updates.
Q: "Do you support RFCXXXX"?
A: Well, yes, but not sure what to do with section 4.3, since we aren't a router,
   so we aren't compliant.

Routers can include host functionality, so they might implement both.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-