Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events
draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Fernando Gont  , Jan Zorz  , Richard Patterson 
Last updated 2020-03-09
Replaced by draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IPv6 Maintenance (6man) Working Group                            F. Gont
Internet-Draft                                    SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
Updates: 4861, 4862 (if approved)                                J. Zorz
Intended status: Standards Track                           Go6 Institute
Expires: September 10, 2020                                 R. Patterson
                                                                  Sky UK
                                                           March 9, 2020

Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
                      to Flash Renumbering Events
                     draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-03

Abstract

   In renumbering scenarios where an IPv6 prefix suddenly becomes
   invalid, hosts on the local network will continue using stale
   prefixes for an unacceptably long period of time, thus resulting in
   connectivity problems.  This document improves the reaction of IPv6
   Stateless Address Autoconfiguration to such renumbering scenarios.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Gont, et al.           Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events           March 2020

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  SLAAC reaction to Flash-renumbering Events  . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Renumbering without Explicit Signaling  . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Renumbering with Explicit Signaling . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Improvements to Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) .   5
     4.1.  More Appropriate Lifetime Values  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.1.  Router Configuration Variables  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.2.  Processing of PIO Lifetimes at Hosts  . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Processing of PIO lifetimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Interface Initialization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Conveying Information in Router Advertisement (RA)
           Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  Recovery from Stale Configuration Information without
           Explicit Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  Sample Timeline for Host Processing of RAs . . . . .  16
   Appendix B.  Analysis of Some Suggested Workarounds . . . . . . .  17
     B.1.  On a Possible Reaction to ICMPv6 Error Messages . . . . .  18
     B.2.  On a Possible Improvement to Source Address Selection . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   IPv6 network renumbering is expected to take place in a planned
   manner, with old/stale prefixes being phased-out via reduced prefix
   lifetimes while new prefixes (with normal lifetimes) are introduced.
   However, there are a number of scenarios that may lead to the so-
   called "flash-renumbering" events, where the prefix being employed on
   a network suddenly becomes invalid and replaced by a new prefix
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum].  In such scenarios, hosts on the local
Show full document text