On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 3:32 AM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
If you follow the 6man working group of the IETF you may have seen a bunch of emails on this topic, on a thread resulting from an IETF Internet-Draft we published with Jan Žorž about "Reaction of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Renumbering Events" (Available at:
https://github.com/fgont/draft-slaac-renum/raw/master/draft-gont-6man-slaac-... )
Hi Fernando, I'm a little confused here. I can certainly see why the default timeout of 30 days is a problem, but doesn't the host lose the route from the RA sooner? Why would an IPv6 host originate connections from an address for which it has no corresponding route? Isn't that broken source address selection? I'd love to see that addressed in your draft. Obviously having the router always explicitly expire the old addresses is a non-starter. There's no certainty that the router knows what the old addresses were, that it's even the same piece of equipment or that all the hosts will see the packet if it does manage to send one. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>