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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 25/10/19 15:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2019, at 2:10 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> The reality is that, we have all sort of things in the echosystem. So if
>> the network is to be robust, while we can and do improvements were
>> possible/needed. That said, there should be smarts on the hosts to cope
>> with these scenarios gracefully (hope for the best, plan for the worst).
> 
> I agree.   But if an ISP’s DHCP server is not doing this, I would say
> that it’s a bug, and we should make sure that we are at least giving
> them correct advice about what DHCP’s behavior should be. 

I fully agree. Indeed, we did include a bit of that in our I-D.


>  Similarly
> with the CPE: if it asks for e.g. a /64, and gets two, one with a
> preferred lifetime of zero, does it advertise both?

This is largely unspecified. So, yes, it should be better specified.

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