Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Ben,

On 27/1/21 18:21, Fernando Gont wrote:
[....]
>>        *  In Replies to DHCPv6 Request, Renew, Rebind messages, send 0
>>           lifetimes for any address assignments or prefix delegations for
>>           the deprecated prefixes for at least the valid-lifetime
>>           previously employed for them, or for a period of ND_VALID_LIMIT
>>           if the recommended lifetimes from Section 3.2 are employed.
>>
>> Is it deliberate to say nothing at all about Advertise messages (which
>> are sent in response to Solicit messages, not any of the listed ones)?
> 
> I will double-check this one with my co-authors.

Our plan is to add this note to the RATIONALE of Section 3.3:

    The above text does not include responses to DHCPv6 Solicit messages,
    since Section 18.3.9 of RFC8415 requires that a DHCPv6 server
    that is not going to assign an address or delegated prefix received
    as a hint in the Solicit message MUST NOT include that address or
    delegated prefix in the Advertise message. Additionally, any
    subsequent Solicit messages will trigger the response specified in
    this section, and therefore cause the address or prefix to be
    deprecated.

Would this address your comment?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492