On 18/12/2012 08:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 18/12/2012 02:01, Fernando Gont wrote:
> ...
>> Nobody even suggested that. For instance, if these addresses had a
>> lifetime (in the RFC4941 sense), they wouldn't be called "stable" in the
>> first place.
>
> I suggest that you add a discussion of site renumbering considerations.
> The problems described in draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem need
> to be avoided.
I just realised what was bothering me about Fernando's statement.
It's the stable-privacy IID that has no specified lifetime. Any IP address
formed via SLAAC has the lifetime determined by SLAAC.
I'd still like to see a discussion of renumbering, if the prefix itself
is withdrawn while the host is connected.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
