> This "point" could be expressed in terms of minimum address-to-interface binding lifetime, how much advance notice should be provided to endpoints before renumbering occurs, and what's the minimum overlap time between old and new addresses. (*) Too short a lifetime, or too little notice, or too little overlap, puts a huge burden on the higher layers, makes it very difficult for them to recover, and results in traffic storms. Too long a lifetime and/or too much notice puts pressure on the network routing system, and the routers, to accommodate the instant renumberings that are sometimes unavoidable. In this particular case, it turns out the network was “lying” about the promised lifetime, and instantly renumbered the network with a overlap time of 0. The discussion then fluctuates between: is this a misconfiguration? how could hosts possible deal with this situation? is there anything in standards that could improve? if we made “client-only” hosts deal well with this, are we doing the end-users a disservice? (as opposed to making sure the hosts break so badly that it results in a support call. ;-)) Cheers, Ole
