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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 25-Oct-19 02:38, Ole Troan wrote:
> Eric,
> 
>> What about a "IPv6 renumbering considered harmful" or "Unstable DHCP-PD prefix considered harmful" ?
> 
> Perhaps, but isn't there a long list of documents the IETF has produced on IPV6 renumbering already?
> Would a new document say anything new and more useful?

I doubt it, although we did leave many dangling problems in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7010

     Brian

> 
> And it's not like DHCPv6 PD (RFC3633) isn't clear either. From the abstract:
> 
>    The Prefix Delegation options provide a mechanism for automated
>    delegation of IPv6 prefixes using the Dynamic Host Configuration
>    Protocol (DHCP).  This mechanism is intended for delegating a long-
>    lived prefix from a delegating router to a requesting router, across
>    an administrative boundary, where the delegating router does not
>    require knowledge about the topology of the links in the network to
>    which the prefixes will be assigned.
> 
> 
> That said, if people want to write a "IPv6 networks need stable prefixes" document, go ahead.
> I'm skeptical that playing with prefix timers and protocol mechanisms will do more than put lipstick on the pig. Iff we wanted to solve ephemeral addressing / connectivity, that's would require something else.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> .
>