Reaction of IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash-Renumbering Events
RFC 8978

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Warren Kumari Yes

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper) No Objection

Comment (2020-10-22 for -04)
It seems like the first paragraph of Section 4 should be removed since it isn't future work at this point.

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2020-10-20 for -04)
Thanks to Klaas Wiereng for the SECDIR review.

** Section 6.  As Section 3.2 is proposing tuning the parameters in RFC4861, it is likely worth reiterating that these security considerations still apply

** Editorial
-- Section 1.  Editorial. s/and and/and/

-- Section 2.2.  Most of this text was already stated in Section 1.

Martin Duke No Objection

Comment (2020-10-14 for -04)
I would like a paragraph somewhere about what happens today in the network without these mitigations. Presumably in most cases the outage doesn't persist for 30 days, or whatever? Do people just reboot endpoints? Is there a service call that results in manual IPv6 address reconfiguration?

Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2020-11-02)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my Discuss (and Comment!) points!

Erik Kline No Objection

Comment (2020-10-21 for -04)
[[ comments ]]

[ section 2.1 ]

* There should be some clarification that use of dynamic prefixes does
  not automatically imply flash renumbering, but rather that it increases
  the likelihood of a flash renumbering event occurring (basically make it
  clear that flash renumbering is the issue, not dynamically changing

* There's also more than one layer of PD stability to be considered: the
  stability of the block delegated from the ISP to the modem/ISP-provided
  CPE (discussed here), and (for example) the stability of the prefix that's
  subdelegated to another router in the home (in cases where the user has
  purchased an additional router to place between nodes in the home and the
  ISP CPE).  In this way, even with stable ISP->CPE prefix delegation, it
  might be possible for the home router to get a different subprefix on

[ section 2.2 ]

* This section should make it clear that magnitude of the impact is a
  function of these timers and that these defaults are not necessarily in
  common use.  The text strongly implies that all flash renumbering events
  impact hosts for 7 days, and I don't think that's true.  (I don't think
  I've been on any dynamic prefix network that used these defaults for a
  long time.)

[ section 2.3 ]

* I support Ben's observation about authenticated RAs.

[[ nits ]]

[ abstract ]

* "will continue using stale prefixes" -> "may continue using stale prefixes"
  or "could" or "might" or "are likely to"

  I think "will" is only correct under very certain circumstances.

  Same text change in the first paragraph of the introduction as well.

[ section 1 ]

* "and and" -> "and"

* "configure for": perhaps "configured from" the previously-advertised prefix

Murray Kucherawy No Objection

Comment (2020-10-22 for -04)
I concur with Martin Duke's suggestion.  Otherwise, I've just a couple of nits here:


* "This document documents this issue ..." -- how about "describes"?

Section 1:

* s/timelier/more timely/

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-10-22 for -04)
Thank you for the work put into this document. It is easy to read but errs sometimes on the anecdotes side rather than on the facts side (except for Jordi's survey). As discussed before, I personaly wonder whether it is a real problem for the IETF: it is largely about CPE/node implementation issues and not a protocol one (even if I agree that the RFC 4861 default timers were badly chosen 20 years ago).

Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENT points and one nit but please also check:
-  Ted Lemon's IoT directorate review with his note about sleeping devices and time-outs:
- Sheng Jiang's Internet directorate review:

I hope that this helps to improve the document,




-- Section 1 --
"for an unacceptably long period of time, thus resulting in connectivity problems." while the 'long period of time" is explained in the end of this section, giving a hint would help the reader to appreciate the problem. I found this introduction rather qualitative than quantitative.

"it is not an unusual behavior" may be... but, documenting (OS versions, specific use cases) would make this argument stronger.

"there has been evidence that some 802.1x supplicants do not reset network settings after successful 802.1x authentication." this is a very outdated behavior of Windows if not mistaken and fixed years ago. In all cases, documenting (OS version, specific case) would make this argument stronger.

"Lacking any explicit signaling to deprecate the previously-advertised prefixes", as the explicit mechanism exists, I suggest to s/explicit/reliable/

"because of egress-filtering by the CPE or ISP" or is it ingress-filtering when packets are sourced by an 'internal' host ?

"or routed elsewhere" I wonder how a packet could be routed elsewhere if the source address is wrong. Policy-based routing ? Suggest to remove those words.

-- Section 2.1 --
Jordi's survey (a good one) does not say how often and how planned are those prefix changes? My own /48 is not 'stable per contract' but has been stable for 7 years (as long as the BNG does not change it will stay the same as AAA & DHCP are linked together at my ISP). So, the 37% is probably not meaning that 37% of the CPE are changing of prefix everyday.

Did the authors check with the German ISP? AFAIK, the default policy has changed.

Suggest to change the reference from RFC 4941 to the -bis document that is in the same IESG telechat (so will not cause delay in the publication of this document).

-- Section 2.3 --
No reply required but I find the last part of this section quite smart. I would not have thought about this corner case ;-)

-- Section 2.5 --
"Not unusually, the two protocols are implemented in two different", I am afraid that this is again 'anecdote' and not 'facts'. Citing implementations details would make this statement stronger.

-- Section 3 --
To be honest, I was about to ballot a DISCUSS on this section as I think that there could be other mitigation techniques. E.g., the ISP could advertise 2 prefixes by DHCP-PD for a while (would need to re-read DHCPv6 to be sure) allowing an easier roll-over of the prefixes (esp. when planned prefix change). Or possibly remove completely this section as 3.1 obvious and it is not exhaustive.

-- Section 3.2 --
While I agree that the default timers are wrong and that the suggested values are way better, this is a change in the CPE doing SLAAC and not in operator settings (or did I badly understood 'operator' as 'network operator' in the sense of ISP as opposed as residential user?). Is the same technique also described in the SLAAC CPE document ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 3.2 --
The use of () in the first paragraph renders it difficult to parse. Consider rewriting it.

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection

Robert Wilton No Objection

Comment (2020-10-19 for -04)

Thank you for this document that highlights an operational issue.

My same comments regarding the acknowledgements and references as for draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05 also apply here.

Thank you to Juergen for the Opsdir review.   I also broadly agree with his comments.  Although tweaking the SLAAC timers helps reduce this problem somewhat, it doesn't seem to mitigate it altogether.  Ideally, there would be a way for the SLAAC protocol to indicate that the advertised prefixes replace all prefixes that had previously been advertised by that device.  Hopefully draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum will specify suitable mitigation.

I also agree with Juergen's statement regarding trying to make hosts more robust if they detect connectivity failures, particularly if there are multiple prefixes available that they could choose from.  I don't know if this might be worth mentioning in section 4 on Future Work?


Martin Vigoureux (was No Objection) No Record