Re: bin/57957: dhcpcd fails to unconfigure addresses from released lease

[Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/57957; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost>
To: "Robert Elz" <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
Cc: "gnats-bugs" <gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>,
	"gnats-admin" <gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost>,
	"netbsd-bugs" <netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>,
	"campbell+netbsd" <campbell+netbsd%mumble.net@localhost>
Subject: Re: bin/57957: dhcpcd fails to unconfigure addresses from released
 lease
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 16:31:10 +0000

  ---- On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 14:57:57 +0000  Robert Elz  wrote --- 
  >     Date:        Sun, 25 Feb 2024 12:18:03 +0000
  >     From:        Roy Marples roy%marples.name@localhost>
  >     Message-ID:  .1370758253774638123%marples.name@localhost>
  > 
  >   | If dhcpcd received an address via DHCPv6 or RA with a lifetime
  >   | of zero then it is removed from the interface.
  > 
  > Yes, that part is/was working fine - the normal case caused no
  > issues at all.   (At one time I was getting addr changes every
  > day - now they're reduced to one a week I think, so the chances
  > to observe this have decreases a lot, and my general net stability
  > is much better now, so things rarely get lost).
  > 
  >   | Otherwise dhcpcd leaves it alone and the address will naturally expire.
  > 
  > But that one didn't seem to.  There was no apparent expiration happening
  > at all (and at times this was after many hours).
  > 
  >   | This behaviour is pretty well documented in then RFCs.
  > 
  > Yes, what should happen is clear - the question is more what
  > does happen.
  > 
  >   | So the only issue left is one of source address selection.
  > 
  > Well, yes, and no.   If the old addr was just left sitting there,
  > and the replacement used for the source addr, then probably no-one
  > would really ever notice (though if the old addresses built up over
  > time it would start getting annoying, eventually).
  > 
  > But that would still be wrong, the old addresses should expire,
  > but weren't (and apparently didn't for Taylor either).
 
 So is the address lifetime continously decreasing or does it ever increase?
 Maybe it's just a long lifetime of months.
 
 No-one has posted yet what their expected address lifetimes are and what they see from ifconfig.
 
 
 Roy