Re: [v6ops] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum

[[e-mail]]

Fernando,

>>> We have timers. We are just not using them appropriately. What's the point of having PL and VL lifetimes in a way that they will never go off in any meaningful timeframe?
>> No. You are proposing to use the prefix timers for something they were never designed for.
> 
> 1) I'm proposing to use prefix timers... for timing out timers :-)
> 
> The Preferred Lifetime, to deprecate an otherwise preferred prefix.
> The Valid Lifetime, to invalidate the prefix.
> 
> Just of curiousity, may I ask what do you think they are meant for? (of course, wasting them by using huge values not being a valid option).

They are meant to support renumbering.

> 2) During the early versions of 6man-slaac-renum, I happened to talk with William Simpson, one of the original authors. He seems to disagree with you.
> 
> 3) Besides the above to bullets, I'm not sure how "...they were never designed for" becomes a technical argument against the proposal on the table.
> 
> 
> 
>> It doesn’t mitigate “the issue” well enough. We need to look elsewhere.
> 
> 6man-slaac-renum contains a number of improvements to mitigate the issue. All of them contribute in a good way towards the ultimate goal.
> 
> Having insanely long timeouts means you don't even do a bare minimum garbage collection.
> 
> I don't think we need to look elsewhere. What's in the group of slaac-renum documents does a good job in dealing with the problem we have on the table, in a way that's incrementally deployable and improves the situation without requiring that everyones updates.

slaac-renum tries to solve operational brokenness by tweaking the protocol. Suggesting all IPv6 implementations should change, and thereby become more brittle, is not a tradeoff I'm willingto make.
What's described in slaac-renum isn't a protocol problem.

Ole