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

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon wrote on 27/10/2019 12:02:
> If you Really Really want to be able to have the routers send out RAs
> that deprecate the default route, and, as Mark is saying here, to
> upgrade millions or perhaps billions of hosts, why not ask for
> something that’s a real improvement?
> 
> First of all, fix CPEs so that they definitely support clean
> deprecation of prefixes using PD.  Second, fix RA so that it’s
> non-repudiable by a device that doesn’t have the secret key.
you mean, turn it into stateful address autoconfiguration? :-)

This isn't a criticism of what you're suggesting btw. It's an 
observation that the design philosophy behind SLAAC has intrinsic 
problems that cannot be resolved without dealing with state and state 
transfer, and that maybe we need to take a critical look at SLAAC and 
make potentially difficult decisions about whether or not it's fit for 
purpose for common deployment situations.

Nick