Re: 6MAN WG Adoption Call: draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh-01

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Erik,

> A question comes to mind: what might the operational guidance be for
> setting the refresh timer value in the RA?
> 
> Observation: it almost certainly shouldn't be /longer/ than the router
> lifetime, even if the prefix lifetimes are infinite.

indeed.

> Reasonable stab in the dark: refresh timer value in the RA should be
> in the neighborhood of some fraction (1/2, 2/3) * min(router lifetime,
> prefix lifetimes...).
> 
> If that turns out to be the case, then the host can compute this timer
> value for itself, sleep on its own schedule, and wake up whenever it
> wants and send a unicast RS.  At that point this isn't a protocol
> change but rather an operational document.  [1]
> 
> At the very least, this is a simple enough experiment to perform for
> people writing the code on the affected devices (doesn't require
> router vendor code changes).  Has anybody done this and measured the
> outcome?

I think this was briefly discussed on the mailing list. the short-coming with this scheme would be the lack of explicit information from the network to the host and from the host to the network that this is supported.

it would at least be a lot harder for the network to identify and deal with legacy hosts without explicit notification of support.

cheers,
Ole