Re: I-D Action: draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-02.txt

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>> I forgot to mention. The current algorithm in Section 4.4 fails if a
>> router sends multiple RAs with a different prefix in each RA.
>> As far as I know, that behavior is allowed.
>
>Nope. The algorithm can accommodate such behaviour by setting 
>LTA_RAS_UNPREFER and LTA_RAS_INVALID appropriately.
>
>For exampple, with the currently specified default settings, PIOs can be 
>split into two RAs, without the prefixes becoming un-preferred. The 
>values of those configuration variables could be increased as deemed 
>necessary -- albeit at the expense of sacrificing responsiveness.

This doesn't work. LTA_RAS_UNPREFER and LTA_RAS_INVALID are fixed in the
host implementation. So the host has to guess what the router is going
to do. 

We have no limit on what the router can do so any guess is wrong by
definition.

At the same time, responsiveness goes completely down the drain for higher
values. Rendering this draft mostly irrelevant if we set those values to
something 'safe'.

In short, I consider this a bad algorithm. I have said so many times in the
past, so I'm not quite sure why the authors want to continue pushing this.