Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-olopade-6man-slaac-signaling-00.txt

Philip Homburg <> Tue, 20 October 2020 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10873A0C8B; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.623
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQ1PZSiQI2iV; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 212573A0CA1; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [::ffff:]) by with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kUsfc-0000E1C; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:31:24 +0200
Message-Id: <>
Cc: "Olopade, Olorunloba" <>, 6man <>
From: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:53:56 +0000 ." <>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:31:24 +0200
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-olopade-6man-slaac-signaling-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:31:35 -0000

In your letter dated Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:53:56 +0000 you wrote:
>I'm proposing an alternate way to address the SLAAC flash renumbering issue, a
>nd I've been advised to put this in a draft. This is the initial draft, and de
>finitely need more work, but will like to know if people think this approach i
>s worth considering.

The mechanism proposed in this draft could work if carefully specified to deal
with edge cases (for example "poor man's multihoming").

However, for this to work changes are required to both routers and hosts.
If the router is a CPE, then we already have quite mature solutions that don't
require changes to hosts.

This would do nothing for hosts behind old CPEs. 

This draft could provide a solution of hosts that get moved to a different
VLAN. However, the need to update both hosts and router makes it more
attractive to find a solution that only requires hosts to be changed.