Folks, A while ago some of us started working on an IETF draft to document and mitigate some issues experienced by SLAAC in the face of some renumbering events. Such work has resulted in three small documents. * draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum (problem statement) * draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum (CPE recommendations) * draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum (proposed protocol updates) Two of such documents are being discussed at the v6ops wg of the IETF, where there are ongoing calls for adoption for two of them. * The "problem statement" document (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum) is being discussed at the v6ops wg of the IETF in this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/HmcZYGY4Lu2h7NUND3o2UiOsKXA * The "CPE recommendations" document (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum) is being discussed in the same group/list, in this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yW_YdRogwMNCRvK1PKpXWgcBkmQ Feedback will be highly appreciated, particularly if on the v6ops wg mailing-list. Thanks! Cheers, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum **Call for adoption** Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 22:56:44 +0000 From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> To: v6ops@ietf.org <v6ops@ietf.org> Folks,   Each week between now and IETF 107, we will review and discuss one draft with an eye towards progressing it.   This week, please review and comment on draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum.   When reviewing this draft, please indicate whether you think that V6OPS should adopt it a s a work item.                                                         Fred and Ron   Juniper Business Use Only