Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-04.txt)
Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 13:12 UTC
Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4162E3A07FB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.624
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.274, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S9n4mwzrO0gj for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C81F3A0855 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jCNdS-0000IyC; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:12:26 +0100
Message-Id: <m1jCNdS-0000IyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-04.txt)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <158393319617.1552.258016943645564875@ietfa.amsl.com> <52e89429-c29e-b10a-718d-a90c61ed0cde@si6networks.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:38:43 -0300 ." <52e89429-c29e-b10a-718d-a90c61ed0cde@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:12:26 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/q8yx6diBokl9o5tV0-9uRhAT5Fw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:12:39 -0000
In your letter dated Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:38:43 -0300 you wrote:
>The original algorithm (Algorithm #1) is now Section 4.5.1, while the
>new algorithm (Algorithm #2) is in Section 4.5.2.
I think your new algorithm fails if a router sends two prefixes in two
RAs and one RA gets lost.
Note RFC 4861 says (Section 6.2.1):
MaxRtrAdvInterval
The maximum time allowed between sending
unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements from
the interface, in seconds. MUST be no less than 4
seconds and no greater than 1800 seconds.
So if one RA gets lost, the next one may come only after 1800 seconds.
I forgot one issue, a router may send two RAs, one with a ULA, and one
with a routable prefix. If the routable prefix accidentally gets deprecated,
then the host loses connectivity.
- SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Versio… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Ve… Philip Homburg
- Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Ve… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Ve… Philip Homburg
- Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Ve… Fernando Gont
- Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Ve… Philip Homburg
- Re: SLAAC renum -- revised algorithm (Fwd: New Ve… Fernando Gont