Re: IPv6 certification - IPv6 Router Advertisement Lifetime 0 and Reachable time 10 seconds

Isaac <> Mon, 25 January 2021 04:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E283A0E22 for <>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:55:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rF6O8CXnjXjh for <>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:55:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A6AB3A0E21 for <>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:55:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k4so12130701ybp.6 for <>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:55:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oW9MsH/tzE7Av71msFqTx0F1vMnrXSVjLA5CbtsrPJE=; b=XIFGg0urZQdwkj07bmi1XchD0IfKVqB9QcanNMtV1JCNPvdsv+qUrMtuZfXBgEPsTy zxG9epf87QruPcIDRO/8/mabspE4hwkjRpx5lqlCHpkkj5ldBsyCDfELaIige6hHon9e WEEk5rSXLapRkZ69VudW45TUJZbHD1YPV8cM3ke6cju/J8qbzQ2fmmEhNfYNnQrb6uoD rCP96917MmSorovWd10Yo5cqlb+jA9p0WUnO2qb0dHYLNPVseryvEnJfozLae6ycCh6s eJvhZiyA9SsMXRQBw6yu51cIB8Yb1e9pEPbzEXrWUoVj0zaHFqWUSBpt3oSslfZqd3E+ YnfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oW9MsH/tzE7Av71msFqTx0F1vMnrXSVjLA5CbtsrPJE=; b=KR+rT9cwSzVgLwtaWuq5y4jQbBEbgjHjurjQqN19c6Ui3Xhn1FftPbYaBnFnk5gzn1 Z0X3hIZaQ33iHBlkuOYaS+EuyZeA8hBQ4128D8lsjUCmtZMfZl8nFNO2QorBeYoIaOM9 IighkSe0LU3aVzzwwt5w0gDp7AcsEJZbjp2fiK2SLt1ZHfixKhuzJ4BQcqdIBGe1DPyq grBL3BXe68EttpN/WMACPfOO3sMXGObmX3labAFJ3Iv8z/A2lF6Rud3Y2PnIuKvHrEIn F8acyAGeSDgquAjw4tfh/JXSyU3zvuSZ1uMhwkoCj6OHlzlk+HgAhDfzwPoPSF6fFDEC fukQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532AnAMsTovjTYHextgmmQNnVMkZszYz3BwAMiO1AOlnkkiy2kTY 7h9Fhxspl2XxFlTFXSyQxrX4lNa2P84Z2G1VOMW/CnGu
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkwGMh+ObBFTPMybq0ksyVMzmsj5lOtH7ItFtrfmJmcEGIY0GIxkT0jPLVzWskJRodmlWLqpW3P9gxBUzlGfQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:f54:: with SMTP id 81mr21605489ybp.103.1611550545256; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 20:55:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Isaac <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:25:33 +0530
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IPv6 certification - IPv6 Router Advertisement Lifetime 0 and Reachable time 10 seconds
To: Ole Troan <>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c9a64705b9b25904"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 04:55:48 -0000

Ole/Tim Winters/IETF team,

Yes, we understand these knobs but we wanted to understand more on
the scenario/topology. More importantly we wanted to understand the real
world scenario when this combination of RA lifetime 0 and reachable time 10
seconds is used and the technical merit of it for which we did not get
clear response (especially in the modern global IPv6 networks context).
It's surprising that the certification bodies haven't clearly mandated only
common/practical (although IETF has mentioned that these paramers need to
be configurable but never said explicitly that all permutation/combination
of values need to be supported. Vendors (definitely want) comply to RFCs
but do not want allow impractical values) use cases but have listed even
the corner scenario which may never be used. We understand that there are
thousand vendors who have implemented this combination. But we fear that
these are extra burden for vendors considering that vendors go ahead for
certification without questioning the certification body itself
believing that the certification body does its job of validating the modern
technical relevance. Ideally, we expect the certification body (if not
IETF) to re visit all the tests periodically to understand the relevancy as
time passes and modify if required (which is the purpose of the
certification body we believe). Sorry to have spilled certain discussions
pertaining to certification body in this forum. But we do not have much
option as we want technical answer from the IETF group. Let's not stop with
the high statements in RFC. The reason we approcahed IETF is to go one
level deep (especially in the context of modern day global networks) to
undertand the relevance of RA lifetime 0 and reachable time 10 seconds
whether it makes sense to support. These are our 2 cents contribution to
the community (if there is someone to listen!)


On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 2:30 AM Ole Troan <> wrote:

> Isaac,
> Need a favor, (if you have it handy) could you please point to a
> configuration by Cisco router (any of the product type would do) which
> sends out the RA lifetime 0 and reachable time 10 seconds and how commonly
> (practically) that is used? (Especially in the context of modern global
> networks where customers want things done autonmously/automatically with
> the least number of knobs possible)
> A quick search would have found that information for you.
> Basically:
> interface Ethernet0
>  ipv6 nd ra lifetime 0
>  ipv6 nd reachable-time 10000
> Best regards,
> Ole