Christian Schild wrote:
I would have expected, that immediately when an interface removes its (last) global address, it will try to obtain a new one, sending out an immediate RS. This is not the case on various platforms.
RFC2462 does not give this advise or at least I was unable to find it.
Nor does 2462bis do.
I think RFC 2461 is quite clear when a host can/should send an RS. And the above case isn't listed.
> Shouldn't a client react when its valid lifetime times out and the > interface loses the address?
It is currently unspecified whether or not the host should do things like immediately kill any TCP connections using the invalidated address, so different implementations might do things differently with respect to this issue.
But that wasn't the root of your question.
Doesn't your case fall in a misconfiguration of the routers?
For instance, I've tested things in the past with a periodic RA annoucement of 10 minutes with a valid lifetime of 5 minutes and observed that the loose the address after 5 minutes and regain it when hearing an RA 5 minutes later. That's a fine test case, but it wouldn't be a useful configuration for an operational network.
So why do you think we need to change something?
> Still there are circumstances when short lifetimes are necessary, e.g. > during a renumbering event or when abusing RAs for router redundancy.
But even if this is done, the lifetimes of the prefixes shouldn't be affected; it should only affect the advertised default router lifetime, right?
> I agree, that might also be possible. But a quick check showed that > neither Linux, BSD nor Windows hosts send RSs' upon Router Lifetime > timeout either. > > But this advise is also lacking in RFC2462. If I searched it correctly, > the RFC does not talk about Router Lifetime at all.
Correct, because the router lifetime is discussed in RFC 2461.
You seem to want to solve the problem when the routers have been configured with a bad set of parameters to use in the advertisements.
Why can't this be fixed by configuring the routers properly?
If you think the hosts need to do more work to handle misconfigured routers I fear it is a very slippery slope; for instance, should the hosts guard against the routers advertising incorrect prefixes as well?
Erik
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
