[v6ops] Re: Dynamic addresses

[Daryll Swer <[e-mail]>]

>
> In answer to Marco, yes, that's an operational error but it doesn't "break
> SLAAC". That's an unhelpful phrase because SLAAC is actually working as
> specified.


Yeah, I could've worded it better.
“Dynamic prefixes breaks the operations of SLAAC. SLAAC works as intended,
the problem here are dynamic prefixes, not SLAAC itself”.

If we wanted to *change* SLAAC, for example by forbidding prefix lifetimes
> greater than N seconds, that's an option we could discuss over in 6man.


Even if you change the values to N, you still have broken connectivity for
N time. I am of the opinion, that no, SLAAC is indeed working as specified,
and there are no reasons to mess with the values. What needs to be changed
is: for ISPs to give the user options for either A. Dynamic ia_pd at the
user's discretion with the downsides for SLAAC operational behaviour Or B.
Static ia_pd that does not change (unless drastic changes occurs upstream,
which also applies to v4 anyway).

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://mailtrack.io/l/cbac236283e622761672855e2cc58db1225256e5?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=261427e857e5755c>


On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 at 05:15, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 13-Aug-24 00:38, Tim Chown wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > *From: *Marco Moock <[e-mail]>
> > *Date: *Monday, 12 August 2024 at 13:29
> > *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > *Subject: *[v6ops] Re: Dynamic addresses
> >
> > Am Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:30:44 +0000
> > schrieb Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail]>:
> >
> >> But I don't understand the statement "breaks SLAAC on the LAN". A
> >> change of prefix renumbers the LAN, but that doesn't break SLAAC, it
> >> just causes SLAAC to renumber everything. It will only break active
> >> sessions.
> >
> > There are some bullcrap routers issued by ISPs that give the prefix a
> > lifetime of forever. That means a computer will keep that address until
> > it is being restarted or the NIC is being disconnected.
> >
> > Such a case has been discussed in the Usenet some months ago.
> >
> > You’ve quoted me, but I didn’t say, that, please be careful  when
> replying :)
>
>
> [Indeed, those were my (Brian's) words. Why the email people haven't
> defined
> a robust standard for quoted text in html email beats me. It's the main
> reason
> I send plaintext mail whenever possible.]
>
> In answer to Marco, yes, that's an operational error but it doesn't "break
> SLAAC". That's an unhelpful phrase because SLAAC is actually working as
> specified.
>
> If we wanted to *change* SLAAC, for example by forbidding prefix lifetimes
> greater than N seconds, that's an option we could discuss over in 6man.
>
>     Brian
>
>
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>