[v6ops] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-04: (with COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 19 October 2020 19:08 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8C63A05A6; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, v6ops@ietf.org, owen@delong.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.20.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <160313448535.7395.1618575323040108910@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:08:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZjvuuHsJQNojpYpGAUilUXV07No>
Subject: [v6ops] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:08:05 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thank you for this document that highlights an operational issue. My same comments regarding the acknowledgements and references as for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05 also apply here. Thank you to Juergen for the Opsdir review. I also broadly agree with his comments. Although tweaking the SLAAC timers helps reduce this problem somewhat, it doesn't seem to mitigate it altogether. Ideally, there would be a way for the SLAAC protocol to indicate that the advertised prefixes replace all prefixes that had previously been advertised by that device. Hopefully draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum will specify suitable mitigation. I also agree with Juergen's statement regarding trying to make hosts more robust if they detect connectivity failures, particularly if there are multiple prefixes available that they could choose from. I don't know if this might be worth mentioning in section 4 on Future Work? Regards, Rob
- [v6ops] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-iet… Robert Wilton via Datatracker