Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

In your letter dated Wed, 20 May 2020 11:28:08 +0100 you wrote:
>So this is indeed a concern for an Operator running IPoE services, but is a
>problem to be tackled on the BNG rather than the CPE router.
>One mitigation is as you suggest, the Operator uses short DHCP lease times
>so that the session times out gracefully within a reasonable time, but this
>is even more reason for L-15 to exist as a MUST, so the CPE doesn't
>overpromise the prefix duration on the LAN.

I have a hard time following this reasoning. We know that customers with
static prefixes are impacted by this and end up with short leases on their
prefixes. There is no point in limiting RA values for static prefixes. 

Of the other hand, for dynamic prefixes, which this draft tries to deal
with, there is no problem with relatively long lease times.

So this draft makes the situation worse for static prefixes to better
deal with the unwanted situation of dynamic prefixes. To me that strikes me
as completely the wrong way around.