Re: [v6ops] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-04

Fernando Gont <> Tue, 20 October 2020 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42093A1387; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.146
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dDZA6oWSxSHS; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 806253A1356; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:b9c:69b8:4602:916c:a007] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:b9c:69b8:4602:916c:a007]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A3AE284055; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:00:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ted Lemon <>,
References: <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:51:39 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:00:16 -0000

Hello, Ted,

Thanks a lot for your comments (past and present ;-) )! In-line....

On 19/10/20 13:21, Ted Lemon via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Ted Lemon Review result: Ready with Nits
> This draft does a good job of discussing typical home use scenarios, 
> where the problems described in the document are most likely to 
> occur. It might be worth noting that some of the assumptions about 
> prefix stability may not be applicable to commercial IoT
> deployments.

Could you please elaborate a bit more?

> This is relevant because some IoT deployments make use of sleepy 
> devices that may only wake up once per day or even less frequently. 
> The suggested parameters would be inappropriate for such a device.

Just me double-checking: Do you mean it would be to short for them?

Please note that the default router lifetime is 1800 seconds. So a host
that sleeps for longer than that will presumably not have a default 
router when it wakes up, and would need to do a "refresh" procedure 
(RS/RA exchange) before it would be able to send a packet, anyway.

> At the same time such a device likely is not relying on RA, since it
>  would not be awake for periodic refreshes. Nevertheless the 
> operational mitigations section could use some additional verbiage 
> about applicability so that readers do not assume that the advice 
> given there is universally applicable.

Please clarify the above, and based on that, we could craft some text if


Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492