On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 07:12:03PM -0400, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > This one fell through the cracks... > > On Sat, Aug 12 2017, Florian Obser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stop supporting prefix lifetimes that decrement in real time. > > It complicates the code, it's off by default and RFC 4861 section > > 6.2.1 lists it as MAY. > > After this we can stop regenerating the RA packets everytime we send > > them. > > I don't think regenerating the RA every time is a big problem, even > though I looked into this at some point.
That is true, we can do better though. I might have a diff ;) > > > Also I'm not convinced that this has a use case. I think it > > comes from a fairy tale where renumbering is easy. > > Easy renumbering looks like a laudable goal to me. > > > Considering the two hour rule in RFC 4862 this might not actually > > work to begin with... > > I can't do proper checks right now, but I think that this feature + the > rules described in 5.5.3.e are compatible. Preferred lifetime is not > affected by these rules. For valid lifetime, it seems that it will be > maintained at 2hours, as long as routers keep announcing the prefix. > Which appears to be compatible with renumbering. I'm saying that you probably would do renumbering in a different way. Just put in a static 2h vltime for a week and be done with it. Eventually stop announcing the prefix. > > > OK? > > I'd prefer that we keep this code. Sure, it's not massively in the way. This came up because I was hacking (again) on a parse.y config file for rtadvd. And less features are better :) In the parse.y code I implemented it in a way that you can say, I want it to expire on Feb 14th 2016. Damn, all the cool references from my childhood about the future are now in the past :(. Anyway, we can bikeshed over that if and when I finally get that code done. > > -- > jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE > -- I'm not entirely sure you are real.
