Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-02.txt

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

> On 5 Mar 2018, at 6:42 pm, Tore Anderson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> * Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>
> 
>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 5:54 pm, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> DNS servers don't differ between cell towers. The thing that
>>> differs is the /64 assigned to the device.
>>> 
>>> The phone announces its address in that /64 as the DNS server. When
>>> the phone's /64 prefix changes, the old address is no longer valid
>>> and potentially belongs to another customer of the network. But
>>> with stateless DHCPv6, there's no way for the phone to tell clients
>>> not to use it any more.  
>> 
>> So you are tearing down the network too fast in the phone.  The point
>> to “deprecating” the prefix is to keep stuff like this working for a
>> while using the deprecated addresses.  If the stateless DHCPv6 is
>> adverting resources with TTLs longer than the RA timers then you as a
>> developer of the phone have build a broken product.
> 
> You're forgetting that the network could be torn down for all sorts of
> reasons outside the phone's control, like driving through a tunnel.
> When you emerge from the tunnel 10 seconds later, the phone might
> receive a new /64.

So?  The existing /64 is STILL valid. You just have 2 prefixes.

> Tore

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]