Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-02.txt

Lorenzo Colitti <> Wed, 22 January 2014 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125F91A0172 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:46:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.913
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xu57WVrSBSnO for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:46:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5816D1A019F for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:46:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id lx4so5175186iec.27 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:46:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZoeI8ySrx6NWAT/7jQYOIUrHee4RgJoRB7eWD39MXyo=; b=HTQnf6BxBmk9LNQk5Vz9u10l+4JhFx9XT/AMLua/tumovlfYe9wkkhVM6+CRiXkKon rnh87cpqQUhcPBlXQzmLDVpsuELIH0myTmDS06p69pRqP/BZpqewI4DN8FB+6hHsDKfM FScGvI/tneOBpvpeuflj+0SbbUpXh2FZkbzMEIyp8s374FlBZXWwZmHQh3/+uvxfPjdB qiCHbNJ28JsZcLREhN//f2C8fdkO/B9NpoIqlUc/5gVhtoY1mkIDv+X8woH4/be52hZC IbrpwGNeIM70XpmHo38NGwfB30bWbWVccdKtTPbLOI91OXzEsrJYf8+4txJlfCq9warD zkRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZoeI8ySrx6NWAT/7jQYOIUrHee4RgJoRB7eWD39MXyo=; b=TQlKzJ33Rsx52E+Rdqvb/aNB1IiuMs9/k3pcg+XO8htzQZT1NP7zX34RXxCK0uYRwY qpxYSXaivTiro1pm5tNVbKHr5K77r9/5cuYu6tSx55pCjGJZrH6mmckS4UTmKqsOrGb3 qxyrbkL6/dKr7W3xoI/sDscv83HJ2sAZM9Q3AxhjrTmR9V+03NitkA70f5b0p3Kcy82f 7dkfsSY6ms9VD8dMxHqi3NkAIT8yhxnt7zqJy+M/Yy8/F2fjQBi92s+agXoR139Nem8E mN57+c2gJTc6DmGfknJo31YWKq7jsKQJxGKmFUT8en/NbyKsQAvaumMFcj6lRoKVMR1L FZXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnoB8PW9INT4VSWV0ggkJGLlOTNHas7iTKHVZyZKbGHVekpPzocy7Ftfly8og+1PeB4srXGYOzpqlf3XocjVGfGObYyqe5KtQGRCj85wjR92ZXtGIXMzcrlx77pShbDK95FVq1pUWN8ayfxoolC220MeZtna9CrsB7DTtXYB1aBHAeKPXW8jSOx/IfUlG1mcxmGPHXI
X-Received: by with SMTP id dg5mr2728201icc.50.1390420009629; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:46:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:46:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:46:29 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-02.txt
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5171b93c3586904f0946284"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:46:52 -0000

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:38 PM, <> wrote:

>    When an interface on a host is initialized, the host transmits Router
>    Solicitations in order to minimize the amount of time it needs to
>    wait until the next unsolicited multicast Router Advertisement is
>    received.  In certain scenarios, these router solicitations
>    transmitted by the host might be lost.  This document specifies a
>    mechanism for hosts to cope with the loss of the initial Router
>    Solicitations.  Furthermore, on some links, unsolicited multicast
>    Router Advertisements are never sent and the mechanism in this
>    document is intended to work even in such scenarios.


One comment here.

If the intent is that we should be able to run networks that do not send
periodic RAs at all, then this document will need to require that hosts
send router solicitations when their RAs (or whatever is in the RA
contents, including lifetimes of PIOs, RIOs, RDNSS options, etc.) are about
to expire - otherwise the hosts will lose connectivity.

This may be difficult to specify correctly. Specifically, it may be hard to
distinguish something that is being deprecated by the network (e.g., an RA
whose lifetime is counting down because it comes from a PD) from an RA that
is about to expire.

If the intent is not that we should be able to run networks without
periodic RAs, then at least the text in 2b needs to change.