On 13 Nov 2010, at 22:24, Mark Smith wrote: > > RFC3484, and the draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-01 update, don't seem to > specify that preferred lifetime values should be used as a tie-breaker > with all other things are equal. The only related text I can see in > RFC3484 is - > > 'Rule 3: Avoid deprecated addresses. > The addresses SA and SB have the same scope. If one of the two > source addresses is "preferred" and one of them is "deprecated" (in > the RFC 2462 sense), then prefer the one that is "preferred."' > > Should the value of the preferred lifetime of an address, with the > largest value preferred, be used in this case, and only then resort to > using the most recently updated address if preferred lifetimes are > equal?
What are the scenarios for differing preferred lifetimes on RAs? As I recall from renumbering work we did some time ago, following RFC4192, in the 'steady state' with two prefixes in use the preferred lifetimes were set to be the same. Only when the 'old' prefix was deprecated did we set its preferred lifetime to zero. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
