RE: Operational Renumbering Procedure

[Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:00 PM 4/28/2003 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>>His presupposition is that folks would be attempting to use the new 
>>prefix to send traffic into the network.  If they do, I'll argue that 
>>something isn't as specified; that shouldn't happen until the next step, 
>>when the new prefix becomes the preferred prefix in RFC 2462-speak (and 
>>therefore might be used as a source address),
>
>This is a bit different ordering of events as one would suppose.  To make 
>that work, you'd have to advertise prefixes with preferred_lifetime=0 and 
>have the hosts configure them as deprecated.  I'm not sure if that'd work, 
>and whether there might be similar other issues.  You also 
>can't  configure any manual addresses as you typically can't set them 
>deprecated.

It seems to me, on further consideration, that you may have identified an 
issue in RFC 2462. If the network administrator cannot deploy a new prefix 
without it automatically coming into use in some set of cases, he cannot 
renumber without his network experiencing some level of outage while he 
does so or until routing has converged.

Who is the proper target of a complaint with 2462? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------