The 6man chairs have started a WG call for adoption of our document
"Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
to Flash Renumbering Events"
Our document proposes protocol improvements such that SLAAC can
gracefully deal with renumbering events. The associated problem
statement can be found here:
If you have comments/feedback/opinions on the topic and/or about the
adoption of our document as a 6man wg item, please consider
participating in the ongoing consensus call:
Please also check the clarifications I've made regarding the adoption
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:35:27 -0700
From: Bob Hinden <bob.h...@gmail.com
To: IPv6 List <ip...@ietf.org
CC: Bob Hinden <bob.h...@gmail.com
This message starts a two week 6MAN call on adopting:
Title: Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events
Authors: F. Gont, J. Zorz, R. Patterson
File Name: draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-08
Document date: 2020-05-18
as a working group item. Substantive comments and statements of support
for adopting this document should be directed to the mailing list.
Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. This adoption call
will end on 10 July 2020.
There has been a lot of discussion on this draft, the chairs have some
concerns with this document being adopted, but wanted the w.g. to
express its opinion. Our concerns include:
This document proposes significant changes to SLAAC to fix what could be
seen as an implementation problem in some edge routers. This will
affect all IPv6 nodes, not only the ones communicating with these edge
routers. This part of IPv6 is a mature standard. It is not clear we
should modify all IPv6 hosts to deal with one corner case that may break
other things allowed by the standard.
The changes proposed will make SLAAC more active, the changes include:
o Reducing the default Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime of PIOs
o Caps the received Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime of PIOs.
o Frequent retransmission of configuration information
o Routers send all options in RA messages
Some additional questions for the w.g. to consider:
o Are there better approaches to address the underlying issue?
o Do the proposed changes work in all deployments?
o Are some proposed changes worth advancing even if the entirety may
not be? If so, which ones?
We would like the w.g. to consider and comment on these issues when
responding to this adoption call.
Bob & Ole
Ipv6hackers mailing list