Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Owen,

On 31/10/19 16:27, Owen DeLong wrote:
[....]
>>>
>>> I’m not sure what I could do to elaborate. The addition of a specific
>>> call-out that
>>> even if the current behavior of ≤2 hours = 2 hours is to be preserved,
>>> there should
>>> be a special case for “0 seconds” which causes the prefix to be immediately
>>> deprecated with extreme prejudice.
>>>
>>> Hosts should be required to treat an RA containing a prefix with a 0 second
>>> valid lifetime as an invalid prefix and immediately deprecate it from
>>> the interface
>>> if it is in use.
>>
>> OK, so you do agree with the proposed change? (in
>> draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum, not in *this* document)
> 
> From the context of my thinking at the time of writing the original reply,
> “this document” referred to draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum. Apolgies
> for my lack of clarity as you have apparently interpreted it differently.

Ok. BUt, double-checking: DO you agree with the proposed behaviour?




[....]
>>>>
>>>> Even with the default RA frequency, if you were to unprefer a prefix
>>>> upon, say, second RA that doesn't advertise it, and say, remove the
>>>> prefix after many other RAs are received, that would be a *big*
>>>> improvement to what we have now.
>>>
>>> I don’t like this idea because I can think of some scenarios where you
>>> may receive multiple RAs from router A not containing the prefix in the
>>> same time frame that router B has not sent an additional RA containing
>>> the prefix, but it will do so in its next RA.
>>
>> Maybe it wasn't clear in the I-D, but the basic idea is:
>> If you receive multiple RAs from router A that do not advertise the
>> prefix, then you disassociate such prefix with router A. If nobody else
>> is advertising the prefix, you'd deprecate it. If other routers are
>> advertising it, this would not change the status quo of the prefix wrt
>> such other routers.
> 
> That’s definitely not how I interpreted the I-D and I would strongly encourage
> you to review and update the I-D for clarity in this area. I’m actually still not
> 100% convinced that this is correct behavior. It also places additional burdens
> on hosts to track all routers associated with a given prefix rather than merely
> tracking candidate default gateways, RIO data, and one set of prefix timers
> utilizing the most recently received timer refreshes.

Thanks for the feedback! I will definitely clarify the text. FWIW, in
the context of RFC8028, you already need to keep prefixes associated
with routers....


> 
>>> There is no requirement for all routers on the same link to provide the
>>> same set of PIOs, nor are they required to use the same advertisement
>>> timers.
>>
>> Agreed. Please see above.
> 
> With the above clarification, I think it can be done and is less likely to break
> things. However, it does place a significant additional tracking burden on the
> host which I’m not entirely convinced is a desirable situation. Especially in the
> case of a resource-constrained host which is using SLAAC to avoid the overhead
> of DHCP.

In the context of RFC8028, you don't have much of an option -- otherwise
you run the risk of being egress filtered.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492