Re: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum **Call for Adoption**

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Fernando Gont wrote:

> Point taken. How about:
> 'Any prefixes that were previously advertised via PIOs in Router 
> Advertisement (RA) messages, and that have become stale, should be advertised 
> with a PIOs that have both the "Valid Lifetime" and the "Preferred Lifetime" 
> set to 0, and the A/L flags with the same settings as in the previous RA 
> messages'
>
>
> Not sure if "with the same settings" is clear enough, though.

"unchanged"?

> Agreed. Although L-13 of RFC7084 makes the reader assume what the proper 
> settings for the flags are.

The longer I participate in the IETF, the more I adopt the opinion that 
documents should not be overly prescriptive.

Is there some text on *why* we're doing this? Perhaps that's better 
instead of writing exactly what the flags should be etc?

Perhaps write that Valid/Preferred lifetime should become zero so that new 
client connections are not sourced from these IPs? Isn't the most 
important thing that the Preferred lifetime is this way? Perhaps write 
"SHOULD NOT change any other flags in the PIO"?

L-13 also has text regarding 2 hour and "whatever is lower". I seem to 
remember this was because some other RFC said something about 2 hour 
minimum... is this still true?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]