Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

> On 25 Oct 2019, at 19:34, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> What about a "IPv6 renumbering considered harmful" or "Unstable DHCP-PD prefix considered harmful" ?
>> 
>> Perhaps, but isn't there a long list of documents the IETF has produced on IPV6 renumbering already?
>> Would a new document say anything new and more useful?
>> 
>> And it's not like DHCPv6 PD (RFC3633) isn't clear either. From the abstract:
>> 
>>   The Prefix Delegation options provide a mechanism for automated
>>   delegation of IPv6 prefixes using the Dynamic Host Configuration
>>   Protocol (DHCP).  This mechanism is intended for delegating a long-
>>   lived prefix from a delegating router to a requesting router, across
>>   an administrative boundary, where the delegating router does not
>>   require knowledge about the topology of the links in the network to
>>   which the prefixes will be assigned.
> 
> Long-lived != immortal. As long as a prefix eventually changes, that is
> when the problem may be experienced.

Not if renumbering of the network is done according to specification. 
Flash renumbering is not defined so no-one should be surprised that you get undefined behavior. 

O.