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

[[e-mail]]

Bernie,

> The question is how long this information has to be remembered and sent to the client. I don't think RFC8415 is that clear on this issue.

RFC8415 doesn't seem to say much about renumbering at all. I guess from its perspective it's all operational.

> Yes, when the old PD is switched to a new PD, the server would be expected to send the old PD with 0 lifetimes. But how long will the server remember this is the key question and, for example if 30 days were remaining on the old PD, it should keep sending it for 30 days.

I don't think that necessarily follows.
The delegating server is allowed to change the lifetimes of the old prefix, so I would imagine it was only necessary to include the old prefix in one DHCP exchange.

> If you read the text of the proposed draft, it only puts a requirement on the CPE:
> 
> 2.2.  Signaling Stale Configuration Information
> 
>   In order to phase-out stale configuration information:
> 
>   o  A CE router sending RAs that advertise dynamically-learned
>      prefixes (e.g. via DHCPv6-PD) on an interface MUST record, on
>      stable storage, the list of prefixes being advertised on each
>      network segment, and the "A" and "L" flags of the corresponding
>      PIOs.

Yes, and as I said that's a band-aid for a broken deployment.
And suggested that a paragraph explaining the correct renumbering procedure was added. To avoid confusion.
Not all CPEs are ever going to do this anyway. 

Best regards,
Ole