Re: Errata for RFC4862

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 10 January 2017 19:31 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4921ADB7-42A6-443E-B639-A3F6F300B13C@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <CAO42Z2xH9wqXKFjtAbv6isQ3cG1=FNUmkNFq2DGJdqj9BFDVaQ@mail.gmail.com> <E459F5B0-D088-4D74-B92A-9A8671249716@employees.org> <4921ADB7-42A6-443E-B639-A3F6F300B13C@jisc.ac.uk>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:31:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqesE0Y+0mpmkWHji+JGhPAtmWJx4LjA4Kz+8ij+Li0E4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Errata for RFC4862
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rJp-KmiUZYPKn12qQANfCgNgkXA>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

At Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:45:27 +0000,
Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

> My recollection of running renumbering experiments is that it’s the
> Preferred Lifetime that matters, i.e. when that is set to zero for a
> prefix, the prefix is marked as deprecated.  So when renumbering,
> you run with two prefixes advertised, old and new, setting the
> Preferred Lifetime to 0 on the old prefix (even though the Valid
> Lifetime is set to 2+ hours), so that the address with the new
> prefix is used for newly initiated communications (as per RFC 6724,
> Rule 3).

Yes, but I guess what Ole tried to point out (which I agree with) is
that the valid lifetime will also have to decrease to 0 eventually,
and this original text of RFC4862 allows such decrease operation
without requiring explicit authentication if done by gradually:

> >>     1.  If the received Valid Lifetime is greater than 2 hours or
> >>         greater than RemainingLifetime, set the valid lifetime of the
> >>         corresponding address to the advertised Valid Lifetime.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya