[lacnog] SLAAC renumbering problems (Fwd: [v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum **Call for adoption**)

[Fernando Gont]

Folks,

A while ago some of us started working on an IETF draft to document and
mitigate some issues experienced by SLAAC in the face of some
renumbering events. Such work has resulted in three small documents.

* draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum  (problem statement)
* draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum (CPE recommendations)
* draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum (proposed protocol updates)

Two of such documents are being discussed at the v6ops wg of the IETF,
where there are ongoing calls for adoption for two of them.


* The "problem statement" document
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum) is being
discussed at the v6ops wg of the IETF in this thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/HmcZYGY4Lu2h7NUND3o2UiOsKXA

* The "CPE recommendations" document
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum) is being
discussed in the same group/list, in this thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yW_YdRogwMNCRvK1PKpXWgcBkmQ


Feedback will be highly appreciated, particularly if on the v6ops wg
mailing-list.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Fernando




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[v6ops] draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum **Call for adoption**
Date: 	Sat, 4 Jan 2020 22:56:44 +0000
From: 	Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net en dmarc.ietf.org>
To: 	v6ops en ietf.org <v6ops en ietf.org>



Folks,

 

Each week between now and IETF 107, we will review and discuss one draft
with an eye towards progressing it.

 

This week, please review and comment on draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum.

 

When reviewing this draft, please indicate whether you think that V6OPS
should adopt it a s a work item.

 

                                                      Fred and Ron

 


Juniper Business Use Only