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

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

> > For IPv4 + NAT, if you flash renumber the upstream address then existing
> > connections will be stuck.
> 
> Not exactly They do fairly quickly get sent TCP RSTs in most cases.

That's not my experience. I hardly ever see a CPE generate a RST when a flow
doesn't exist. 

> OTOH, leaving the connection hung until it times out at the
> application or host TCP stack level creates huge delays in service
> restoration.

This is exactly what happens today in many cases. Of course, where developers
get annoyed by this behaviour, they implement shorter timeout at the 
application level. I.e., a typical webbrowser doesn't wait for the host to
report an error on a TCP connection.

> Because the IPv4 host fairly quickly receives an RST packet when
> the outbound packet hits a non-existent state table entry or a
> state table entry marked as dead.

My experience is different. In any case, if we want the CPE to send a RST
when it upstream prefix changes, then of course that can be coded as well.
I very much doubt that we really want to go there. Changing the host
would be better.

> Unless the CPE knows to send out an RA with a preferred lifetime
> of 0 for the now deprecated prefix, then you are mistaken in the
> actual systemic behavior.

The whole point of this discussion is to write a draft that requires the CPE
to do so. Probably with a companion of recommended host changes.