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

[Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

We test it four different ways.
A: Lifetimes set to zero (First IA_PD gets to zero, New IAPD as a lifetime)
B: Prefix Timeout (First IA_PD never gets renewed)
C: Reconfigure (Send Reconfigure responding Renew message has first IA_PD
to zero, second IA_PD valid)
D: Change Prefix Length

Details are located here
<https://www.iol.unh.edu/sites/default/files/testsuites/hnc/IPv6_Ready_Specification_CE_Router_Conformance.pdf>
for
test 2.7.5.

~Tim


On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:59 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Oct 30, 2019, at 8:40 AM, Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> We check both, the handling of the IA_PD and the error message.
>
>
> And to be clear, you mean that if the CPE asks for a prefix delegation and
> doesn’t get the prefix it previously had, it deprecates it as described in
> L-14?  When this deprecation happens, what ways are being tested for it to
> happen?
>
> E.g., is it the case that the client sends an IA PD containing an IA
> Prefix option, is the server returning the IA Prefix option containing the
> same prefix, with a status code encapsulated in it?   What status code?
> Or is it returning an IA Prefix option with a different prefix?   Or is it
> doing both?
>
>