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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 29-Jun-20 13:48, Fernando Gont wrote:
...

>> Since the flash renumbering is such a corner case I think we really have 
>> to vet the impact of changes in all other scenarios.  Also the fact that 
>> users at home are causal users not business critical that can result in 
>> revenue loss I think that would be a consideration.
>>
>> Also maybe having a v6ops draft that talks about corners case issues 
>> which below does exist.
> 
> Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by "corner case"? Operators 
> have repeatedly noted on the v6ops list that these scenarios do happen. 
> And as noted in another email, work on this topic was indeed triggered 
> by an ISP that asked for guidance while dealing with this issues.

I'll repeat something I think I said many months ago. While I was in an
apartment that had a defective POTS twisted pair (eventually traced to
water ingress to a defective junction point under the road), I had multiple
ADSL resets every rainy day for months, and because of my ISP's policy
that led to multiple flash renumberings per day.

Yes, OK, it shouldn't happen but it does happen.

    Brian

> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum should make it 
> evident that this is a general issue with SLAAC, as opposed to a "corner 
> case" that happens in one particular scenario.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
>