Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to IPv6 Renumbering Events
draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-08

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (v6ops WG)
Authors Fernando Gont  , Jan Zorz  , Richard Patterson  , Bernie Volz 
Last updated 2021-07-15 (latest revision 2021-05-27)
Replaces draft-gont-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Best Current Practice
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Owen DeLong
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-07-07)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Warren Kumari
Send notices to Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
RFC Editor RFC Editor state AUTH48
Details
IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops)                            F. Gont
Internet-Draft                                              SI6 Networks
Updates: 7084 (if approved)                                      J. Zorz
Intended status: Best Current Practice                          6connect
Expires: November 28, 2021                                  R. Patterson
                                                                  Sky UK
                                                                 B. Volz
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            May 27, 2021

  Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to IPv6 Renumbering
                                 Events
                  draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-08

Abstract

   This document specifies improvements to Customer Edge Routers that
   help mitigate the problems that may arise when network configuration
   information becomes invalid, without any explicit signaling of that
   condition to the local nodes.  This document updates RFC7084.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 28, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Improved Customer Edge Router Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Automatic DHCPv6 RELEASEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Stability of IAIDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Interface Between WAN-side and LAN-side . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  LAN-side Option Lifetimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.5.  Signaling Stale Configuration Information . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Recommended Option Lifetimes Configuration Values . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   In scenarios where network configuration information becomes invalid
   without any explicit signaling of that condition (such as when a
   Customer Edge Router crashes and reboots without knowledge of the
   previously-employed configuration information), hosts on the local
   network will continue using stale information for an unacceptably
   long period of time, thus resulting in connectivity problems.  This
   problem is documented in detail in [RFC8978].

   This document specifies improvements to Customer Edge (CE) Routers
   that help mitigate the aforementioned problem for residential and
   small office scenarios.  It specifies recommendations for the default
   behavior of CE Routers, and does not preclude the availability of
   configuration knobs that might allow an operator or user to manually-
   configure the CE Router to deviate from these recommendations.  This
   document updates RFC7084.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Improved Customer Edge Router Behavior

   This section specifies and clarifies requirements for Customer Edge
   Routers that can help mitigate the problem discussed in Section 1,
   particularly when they employ prefixes learned via DHCPv6-Prefix
   Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) [RFC8415] on the WAN-side with Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862] or DHCPv6 [RFC8415] on
   the LAN-side.  The recommendations in this document help improve
   robustness at the Customer Edge Router (on which the user or ISP may
   have no control), and do not preclude implementation of host-side
   improvements such as those specified in [I-D.ietf-6man-slaac-renum].

   This document specifies additional prefix-delegation requirements to
   those specified in [RFC7084]:

   o  WPD-9: CE routers SHOULD NOT automatically send DHCPv6-PD RELEASE
      messages upon reboot events.  See Section 3.1 for further details.

   o  WPD-10: CE Routers MUST by default use a WAN-side IAID value that
      is stable between CE Router restarts, DHCPv6 client restarts, or
      interface state changes (e.g., Transient PPP interfaces), unless
      the CE Router employs the IAID techniques discussed in Section 4.5
      of [RFC7844].  See Section 3.2 for further details.

   This document also replaces LAN-side requirement L-13 from [RFC7084]
   with:

   o  L-13: CE routers MUST signal stale configuration information as
      specified in Section 3.5.

   Finally, this document specifies the following additional LAN-side
   requirements to those from [RFC7084]:

   o  L-15: CE routers MUST NOT advertise prefixes via SLAAC or assign
      addresses or delegate prefixes via DHCPv6 on the LAN-side,
      employing lifetimes that exceed the remaining lifetimes of the
      corresponding prefixes learned from the WAN-side via DHCPv6-PD.
      For more details, see Section 3.3.

   o  L-16: CE routers SHOULD advertise capped SLAAC option lifetimes
      and capped DHCPv6 IA Address Option and IA Prefix Option
      lifetimes, as specified in Section 3.4.

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

3.1.  Automatic DHCPv6 RELEASEs

   Some CE Routers are known to automatically send DHCPv6-PD RELEASE
   messages upon reboot events.  However, this may inadvertently trigger
   a flash-renumbering scenario, along with the associated problems
   discussed in [RFC8978], that this document attempts to mitigate.

   As a result, requirement WPD-9 from Section 3 specifies that CE
   routers SHOULD NOT automatically send DHCPv6-PD RELEASE messages upon
   reboot events.

3.2.  Stability of IAIDs

   [RFC8415] requires that the IAID for an IA MUST be consistent across
   restarts of the DHCP client.  However, some popular CE Routers are
   known to select new random IAIDs e.g. everytime the underlying PPP
   session is established.  This could be the result of extrapolating
   the behavior described in [RFC7844], or simply a consequence of not
   storing IAIDs on stable storage along with failing to employ an
   algorithm that consistently generates the same IAID upon reboots.
   Thus, requirement WPD-10 from Section 3 prevents CE Routers from
   inadvertently triggering flash-renumbering events on the local
   network.

3.3.  Interface Between WAN-side and LAN-side

   The "Preferred Lifetime" and "Valid Lifetime" of Prefix Information
   Options (PIOs) [RFC4861] corresponding to prefixes learned via
   DHCPv6-PD MUST NOT span past the remaining preferred and valid
   lifetimes of the corresponding DHCPv6-PD prefixes.  This means that
   the "Preferred Lifetime" and the "Valid Lifetime" advertised in PIOs
   by the CE router MUST be dynamically adjusted such that they never
   span past the remaining preferred and valid lifetimes of the
   corresponding prefixes delegated via DHCPv6-PD on the WAN-side.

   Similarly, the "preferred-lifetime" and "valid-lifetime" of DHCPv6 IA
   Address Options and DHCPv6 IA Prefix Options employed with DHCPv6 on
   the LAN-side MUST NOT span past the remaining preferred and valid
   lifetimes of the corresponding prefixes leased via DHCPv6-PD on the
   WAN-side.  This means that the "preferred-lifetime" and "valid-
   lifetime" of DHCPv6 IA Address Options and DHCPv6 IA Prefix Options
   employed with DHCPv6 on the LAN-side MUST be dynamically adjusted
   such that they never span past the remaining preferred and valid
   lifetimes of the corresponding prefixes delegated to the CE router on
   the WAN-side via DHCPv6-PD.

   RATIONALE:

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

      *  The lifetime values employed for the "Preferred Lifetime"
         (AdvPreferredLifetime) and "Valid Lifetime" (AdvValidLifetime)
         of SLAAC Prefix Information Options must never be larger than
         the remaining lifetimes for the corresponding prefix (as
         learned via DHCPv6-PD on the WAN-side).  This is in line with
         the requirement from Section 6.3 of [RFC8415], which states
         that "if the delegated prefix or a prefix derived from it is
         advertised for stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862],
         the advertised preferred and valid lifetimes MUST NOT exceed
         the corresponding remaining lifetimes of the delegated prefix."

      *  The lifetime values of prefixes advertised on the LAN-side via
         SLAAC must be dynamically updated (rather than static values),
         otherwise the advertised lifetimes would eventually span past
         the DHCPv6-PD lifetimes.

      *  The same considerations apply for the valid-lifetime and
         preferred-lifetime of IA Address Options and IA Prefix Options
         employed with DHCPv6 on the LAN-side.

3.4.  LAN-side Option Lifetimes

   CE Routers SHOULD override the default lifetime values of Neighbor
   Discovery options that depend in any way on changes in the prefix
   employed for address configuration on the LAN-side, and employ
   shorter lifetime values to improve the robustness to renumbering
   events, while complying with the requirements from Section 3.3 of
   this document and the recommendations in [RFC7772].

   CE Routers SHOULD set the Router Lifetime to ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT.

   CE Routers SHOULD also set the PIO Preferred Lifetime to the lesser
   of the remaining preferred lifetime (see Section 3.3) and
   ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT, and the PIO Valid Lifetime to the lesser of the
   remaining valid lifetime and ND_VALID_LIMIT.  Additionally, the Route
   Lifetime of Route Information Options (RIOs) [RFC4191], the Lifetime
   of Recursive DNS Search Options (RDNSSO) [RFC8106], and the Lifetime
   of DNS Search List Options (DNSSLO) [RFC8106] SHOULD be set to the
   lesser of the longest valid-lifetime in a DHCPv6 IA Prefix Option
   (received via DHCPv6 on the WAN-side) and ND_VALID_LIMIT, if any of
   these options are included in Router Advertisement messages.

   NOTES:  In scenarios where the valid-lifetime and the preferred-
      lifetime of the prefix leased via DHCPv6 on the WAN-side are
      always larger than ND_VALID_LIMIT and ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT,
      respectively, the lifetime values advertised on the LAN-side will
      not experience actual changes.

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

      The above text refers to the Neighbor Discovery Options that are
      typically employed by CE Routers.  A CE Router may need to apply
      the same policy for setting the lifetime of other Neighbor
      Discovery options it employs, if and where applicable.

   CE Routers providing stateful address configuration via DHCPv6 SHOULD
   set the DHCPv6 IA Address Option preferred-lifetime to the lesser of
   the remaining preferred lifetime (see Section 3.3) and
   ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT, and the valid-lifetime of the same option to the
   lesser of the remaining valid lifetime and ND_VALID_LIMIT.

   CE Routers providing DHCPv6-PD on the LAN-side SHOULD set the DHCPv6
   IA Prefix Option preferred-lifetime to the lesser of the remaining
   preferred lifetime (see Section 3.3) and ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT, and the
   valid-lifetime of the same option to the lesser of the remaining
   valid lifetime and ND_VALID_LIMIT.

   RATIONALE:

      *  The Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime of PIOs have a direct
         impact on three different aspects:

         +  The amount of time hosts may end up employing stale network
            configuration information (see [RFC8978]).

         +  The amount of time CE Routers need to persist trying to
            deprecate stale network configuration information (e.g. to
            handle cases where hosts miss Router Advertisements and thus
            still consider the stale information as valid).

         +  The amount of information that CE Routers need to maintain
            when e.g. multiple crash-and-reboot events occur in the
            timespan represented by the option lifetimes employed on the
            LAN-side.

      *  CE Routers need not employ the (possibly long) WAN-side
         DHCPv6-PD lifetimes for the Valid Lifetime and Preferred
         Lifetime of PIOs sent in Router Advertisements messages to
         advertise sub-prefixes of the leased prefix.  Instead, CE
         Routers SHOULD use shorter values for the Valid Lifetime and
         Preferred Lifetime of PIOs, since subsequent Router
         Advertisement messages will nevertheless refresh the associated
         lifetimes, leading to the same effective lifetimes as specified
         by the WAN-side DHCPv6-PD lifetimes.

      *  Similarly, CE Routers need not employ the (possibly long) WAN-
         side DHCPv6-PD lifetimes for the valid-lifetime and preferred-
         lifetime of IA Address Options and IA Prefix Option employed by

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

         DHCPv6 on the LAN-side, since the renewal of bindings by DHCPv6
         clients will lead to the same effective lifetimes as specified
         by the WAN-side DHCPv6-PD lifetimes.

3.5.  Signaling Stale Configuration Information

   When a CE Router provides LAN-side address-configuration information
   via SLAAC:

   o  A CE Router sending RAs that advertise dynamically-learned
      prefixes (e.g. via DHCPv6-PD) SHOULD record, on stable storage,
      the list of prefixes being advertised via PIOs on each network
      segment, and the state of the "A" and "L" flags of the
      corresponding PIOs.

   o  Upon changes to the advertised prefixes, and after bootstrapping,
      the CE Router advertising prefix information via SLAAC proceeds as
      follows:

      *  Any prefixes that were previously advertised by the CE Router
         via PIOs in RA messages, but that have now become stale, MUST
         be advertised with a PIO that has the "Valid Lifetime" and the
         "Preferred Lifetime" set to 0, and the "A" and "L" bits
         unchanged.

      *  The aforementioned advertisement MUST be performed for at least
         the "Valid Lifetime" previously employed for such prefix.  The
         CE Router MUST advertise this information with unsolicited
         Router Advertisements as described in Section 6.2.4 of
         [RFC4861], and MAY advertise this information via unicast
         Router Advertisements when possible and applicable.

         +  Note: If requirement L-16 (Section 3.4) is followed, the
            Valid Lifetime need not be saved and the stale prefix can
            simply be advertised for a period of ND_VALID_LIMIT.

   o  CE Routers receiving DHCPv6 Prefix Delegations with a 0 valid-
      lifetime MUST advertise the corresponding sub-prefixes (as they
      would be generated for the same leased prefix with a non-zero
      lifetime) with a PIO with both the Preferred Lifetime and the
      Valid Lifetime set to 0, for at least the WAN-side DHCPv6-PD
      valid-lifetime, or for a period of ND_VALID_LIMIT if the
      recommended lifetimes from Section 3.4 are employed.

   When a CE Router provides LAN-side DHCPv6 (address assignment or
   prefix delegation), then:

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

   o  The CE Router SHOULD record, on stable storage, the DHCPv6 address
      and delegated-prefix bindings corresponding to the LAN-side.

   o  If the CE Router finds that the prefix to be employed for address
      assignment and/or prefix delegation has changed (e.g., upon a
      crash-and-reboot event) or the CE Router receives DHCPv6 Prefix
      Delegations with 0 lifetimes, the CE Router MUST:

      *  In Replies to DHCPv6 Request, Renew, and Rebind messages, send
         IA Address Options or IA Prefix Options (as appropriate) for
         any address assignments or prefix delegations for the
         deprecated prefixes.  The aforementioned options MUST be sent
         with both the valid-lifetime and the preferred-lifetime set to
         0, for at least the valid-lifetime originally employed for
         them, or for a period of ND_VALID_LIMIT if the recommended
         lifetimes from Section 3.4 are employed.

      *  Initiate sending Reconfigure messages (if possible - i.e.,
         client requests Reconfigure support and the CE Router offers
         it) to those clients with address assignments or prefix
         delegations for the deprecated prefixes.

   RATIONALE:

      *  IPv6 network renumbering is expected to take place in a planned
         manner, with old/stale prefixes being phased-out via reduced
         prefix lifetimes while new prefixes (with normal lifetimes) are
         introduced.  However, a number of scenarios may lead to the so-
         called "flash-renumbering" events, where the prefix being
         employed on a network suddenly becomes invalid and replaced by
         a new prefix [RFC8978].  One such scenario is when a DHCPv6
         server employs dynamic prefixes and the Customer Edge Router
         crashes and reboots.  The requirements in this section are
         meant to allow Customer Edge Routers to deprecate stale
         information in such scenarios.

      *  The recommendations in this section expand from requirement
         L-13 in Section 4.3 of [RFC7084], and Section 6.3 of [RFC8415].

      *  Host configuring addresses via SLAAC on the local network may
         employ addresses configured for the previously advertised
         prefixes for at most the "Valid Lifetime" of the corresponding
         PIO of the last received Router Advertisement message.  Since
         Router Advertisement messages may be lost or fail to be
         received for various reasons, Customer Edge Routers need to try
         to deprecate stale prefixes for a period of time equal to the
         "Valid Lifetime" of the PIO employed when originally
         advertising the prefix.

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

      *  The requirement in this section is conveyed as a "SHOULD" (as
         opposed to a "MUST"), since the requirement to store
         information on stable storage may represent a challenge for
         some implementations.

      *  Advertising DHCPv6-leased prefixes with zero lifetimes on the
         LAN-side would handle the case where a CE Router has no stable
         storage but receives the prefixes via DHCPv6 with 0 lifetimes.

      *  The above text does not include DHCPv6 Advertise messages sent
         in response to DHCPv6 Solicit messages, since Section 18.3.9 of
         [RFC8415] requires that a DHCPv6 server that is not going to
         assign an address or delegated prefix received as a hint in the
         Solicit message MUST NOT include that address or delegated
         prefix in the Advertise message.  Additionally, any subsequent
         Request messages will trigger the response specified in this
         section, and therefore cause the address or prefix to be
         deprecated.

4.  Recommended Option Lifetimes Configuration Values

   o  ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT: 2700 seconds (45 minutes)

   o  ND_VALID_LIMIT: 5400 seconds (90 minutes)

   RATIONALE:
      These values represent a trade-off among a number of factors,
      including responsiveness and possible impact on the battery life
      of connected devices [RFC7772].

      ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT is set according to the recommendations in
      [RFC7772] for Router Lifetime, following the rationale from
      Section 3.2 of [RFC8978].

      ND_VALID_LIMIT is set to 2 * ND_PREFERRED_LIMIT to provide some
      additional leeway before configuration information is finally
      discarded by the host.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document discusses a problem that may arise in scenarios where
   dynamic IPv6 prefixes are employed, and proposes improvements to
   Customer Edge Routers [RFC7084] to mitigate the problem for
   residential or small office scenarios.  It does not introduce new

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

   security issues, and thus the same security considerations as for
   [RFC4861], [RFC4862], [RFC7084], and [RFC8415] apply.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Owen DeLong, Philip Homburg, Erik
   Kline, and Ted Lemon, for their valuable help in improving this
   document via successive detailed reviews.

   The authors would like to thank Mikael Abrahamsson, Luis Balbinot,
   Tim Chown, Brian Carpenter, Lorenzo Colitti, Alejandro D'Egidio, Gert
   Doering, Fernando Frediani, Guillermo Gont, Steinar Haug, Nick
   Hilliard, Lee Howard, Christian Huitema, Sheng Jiang, Benjamin Kaduk,
   Suresh Krishnan, Warren Kumari, Albert Manfredi, Olorunloba Olopade,
   Jordi Palet Martinez, Richard Patterson, Pete Resnick, Michael
   Richardson, Mark Smith, Job Snijders, Sander Steffann, Tarko Tikan,
   Ole Troan, Loganaden Velvindron, Eric Vyncke, Robert Wilton, Timothy
   Winters, Christopher Wood, and Chongfeng Xie, for providing valuable
   comments on earlier versions of this document.

   Fernando would also like to thank Brian Carpenter who, over the
   years, has answered many questions and provided valuable comments
   that have benefited his protocol-related work.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
              November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

   [RFC7772]  Yourtchenko, A. and L. Colitti, "Reducing Energy
              Consumption of Router Advertisements", BCP 202, RFC 7772,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7772, February 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7772>.

   [RFC7844]  Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
              Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.

   [RFC8106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8415]  Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
              Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
              "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
              RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-6man-slaac-renum]
              Gont, F., Zorz, J., and R. Patterson, "Improving the
              Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
              to Flash Renumbering Events", draft-ietf-6man-slaac-
              renum-02 (work in progress), January 2021.

   [RFC7084]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
              Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.

   [RFC8978]  Gont, F., Zorz, J., and R. Patterson, "Reaction of IPv6
              Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash-
              Renumbering Events", RFC 8978, DOI 10.17487/RFC8978, March
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8978>.

Authors' Addresses

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft       Reaction to Renumbering Events             May 2021

   Fernando Gont
   SI6 Networks
   Segurola y Habana 4310, 7mo Piso
   Villa Devoto, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires
   Argentina

   Email: fgont@si6networks.com
   URI:   https://www.si6networks.com

   Jan Zorz
   6connect

   Email: jan@6connect.com

   Richard Patterson
   Sky UK

   Email: richard.patterson@sky.uk

   Bernie Volz
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   300 Beaver Brook Rd
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   USA

   Email: volz@cisco.com

Gont, et al.            Expires November 28, 2021              [Page 12]