RE: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Tue, 20 October 2009 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6E13A6827 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C284HWu-fmhJ for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968C03A6781 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=1195; q=dns/txt; s=rtpiport01001; t=1256067874; x=1257277474; h=from:sender:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:to:cc: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-id: content-description:resent-date:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-to:resent-cc:resent-message-id:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; z=From:=20"Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)"=20<shemant@cisco.co m>|Subject:=20RE:=20Are=20IPv6=20auto-configured=20addres ses=20transient?|Date:=20Tue,=2020=20Oct=202009=2015:44:3 1=20-0400|Message-ID:=20<B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D 08564BC4@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>|To:=20"Brian=20Haber man"=20<brian@innovationslab.net>,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20"Margaret=20Wasserman"=20<mrw@sandstorm.net>|Cc: =20<ipv6@ietf.org>|MIME-Version:=201.0 |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |In-Reply-To:=20<4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net> |References:=20<5988ed3c0910070925iaa3b136jd500d30037946a 3a@mail.gmail.com><1C461E2E-C218-42EF-BC23-D8B1B4389C40@s andstorm.net>=20<4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net>; bh=OsiYi0XmDR3MAbAHjJnT6shX5hnsO2OZlzO90mx+p9E=; b=JiCNP9Oa6gWzmkMJhnyEKmWEMLtN8aRCHFi2R5ePp3vE84IfO7TZ/Uxo VNn+GgDOexcgjcocc+0j29ADSQpKCpM9t+ogIcJHkAuwgL917Jqi1DbdZ a5+FGDE5SVrsHEUXhdYZx5n90pA4H+ibo1jm7o+0FMyDTP8w46leLOgdh Y=;
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAFew3UpAZnwN/2dsb2JhbADDBZhFhDEEgVw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,593,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="64003877"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0000
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9KJiX8k014384; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:44:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:44:33 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:44:31 -0400
Message-ID: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D08564BC4@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?
Thread-Index: AcpOh1s5Gjp9PKefQ7K8KdDkSleMxADHvJ1g
References: <5988ed3c0910070925iaa3b136jd500d30037946a3a@mail.gmail.com><1C461E2E-C218-42EF-BC23-D8B1B4389C40@sandstorm.net> <4AD8AEDC.2000800@innovationslab.net>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@sandstorm.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2009 19:44:33.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF27B600:01CA51BD]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:44:26 -0000

Brian,

Please see in line below.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
>Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 1:35 PM
>To: Margaret Wasserman
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Are IPv6 auto-configured addresses transient?


>I suppose there is a related question as to how an application that
uses 
>IP addresses in referrals should behave.  Would an application find it 
>useful to know the lifetime associated with the auto-configured
addresses?

I did think about referrals and now have a response.  Any XYZ protocol
that sends referrals in control messages should already have mechanism
in place to send a control message for a referral update.  If the XYZ
doesn't have such control, then the XYZ protocol should add it.  I would
still stay away from sending lifetime of an address to an app.  Likewise
for sending lifetime to DNS when graceful renumbering already exists as
defined in the RFCs.  Personally I never get convinced for IETF taking
any new work to specify any behavior if folks mention to me a corner
case for a problem - like in the DNS email Mark Andrews sent.

Hemant