Hi, Brian, On 12/25/2012 01:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter 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.
The SLAAC lifetime applies. -- We're just generating IIDs in a diferent way, but *not* changing SLAAC itself (that's where the lifetimes come from). > Any IP address > formed via SLAAC has the lifetime determined by SLAAC. Exactly. > I'd still like to see a discussion of renumbering, if the prefix itself > is withdrawn while the host is connected. Whatever happens to traditional slaac addresses would happen to stable-privacy-addresses. Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
