The primary concern is whether Alice would send a channel_reestablish message to Bob and, if so, how Bob would respond to this message, especially considering the change in Alice's IPv4 address.

The inquiry delves into whether there is a specified behavior for such situations in any existing specifications. This question aims to understand if the protocol dictates a specific course of action when one node attempts to renew communication after losing its IPv4 lease or if the response to this scenario is left to the discretion of individual Lightning Network (LN) implementations.

Furthermore, the question seeks detailed insights into how the LND (Lightning Network Daemon) implementation specifically addresses this issue. The context hints at a desire to understand the technical nuances of message retransmission and the handling of IP address changes by nodes within the LN framework. For more detailed technical information, reference is made to the Lightning Network's protocol documentation available at Github - lightning/bolts.

This inquiry underscores the complexities involved in managing peer-to-peer connections within the Lightning Network, particularly concerning IPv4 connectivity issues. It highlights the need for clear guidelines or behaviors to ensure consistent and reliable communication between nodes, even in the face of changing network conditions.