Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 20/02/2019 à 10:59, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> On 20/2/19 06:32, Mark Smith wrote:
[...]
>> What I am saying is that they are and have been foundation design and
>> implementation assumptions that have been in place for multiple
>> decades. I think the longer a foundation assumption has been in place,
>> the more care and consideration you need to give to changing it,
>> because there can be unexpected impacts. Given those impacts, it may
>> be better to preserve them and design around them, compared to trying
>> to change them ("boiling the ocean"). The Mobile IP people, for
>> example, took this approach.
> 
> Based on the deployment level of Mobile IP, I'm not sure we want to
> follow that road ;-)

But do not take an even worse road, even less implementations.

(Mobile IP implementations are available widely on Cisco and other 
platforms; Mobile IPv4, Mobile IPv6 and DS-MIP are distinct; numerous 
trials featured it; Mobile IP went even into Space on a shuttle)

The SLAAC problem with non-expiring prefixes and addresses that you talk 
about in your draft is valid, and solving it could be valuable in some 
context.

Alex

[...]