Re: ID: More Accurately Naming IPv6 RA Router Lifetime (Re: New Version Notification for draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime-00.txt)
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 05 May 2021 08:15 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE4D3A1756 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2021 01:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n-ceElk_raVY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2021 01:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5DB43A1754 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 01:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 1458FMuK039225 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 10:15:22 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C0940203824 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 10:15:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64D4203888 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 10:15:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.14.13.47] ([10.14.13.47]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 1458FMb3004200 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 10:15:22 +0200
Subject: Re: ID: More Accurately Naming IPv6 RA Router Lifetime (Re: New Version Notification for draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime-00.txt)
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <162011606497.27748.2372985755866817594@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAO42Z2xWLnEe8L4Zy3jXZcecGMGV45eyKfpFtKprOD2AdQ+LWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2zioVfudbB0_b9Ous4gUaE4ASU8RAp83s4mGQXX2oV+Fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2df7c730-20da-f4f5-f441-b2ec2028f3ba@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 10:15:22 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2zioVfudbB0_b9Ous4gUaE4ASU8RAp83s4mGQXX2oV+Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VIpPms9s_pBmkrqefc_4adOKwnM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 08:15:30 -0000
Le 05/05/2021 à 09:43, Mark Smith a écrit : > Now with a more exciting email subject! Thanks, The idea sounds great and it would solve a common problem of understanding the meaning of that field. A better understanding would lead to better implementations. But, there might be drawbacks as well: will it confuse a reader of an old code commented with 'Router Lifetime' everywhere and not finding that 'Router Lifetime' text in a potentially updated RFC? > The Router Lifetime field of an RA indicates whether or not the > advertising router will act as a default router for the receiving > IPv6 hosts, and if so, for how many seconds it will perform that > role, unless it is refreshed by a subsequent RA from the router. YEs, it is well formulated. Maybe to be complete it should say that the 'how many seconds' is non-zero. > If the RA Router Lifetime field value is zero, it means that the > router is not or will no longer be acting as a default router. yes, but it will still be able to act as a router. Maybe as a router for more specific routes, or maybe as a router to advertise the MTU of the link, or maybe for SLAAC (maybe for VSLAAC too). (also, a side note, I think nothing prohibits a Host receiving that RA containing a 0 router lifetime to actually use it in whatever way it feels necessary. That concept of 'default' route is a concept in the Host. The Host might use it as it wants, irrespective of what the router suggests.) Alex > > On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 18:24, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I've been thinking for a while that the Router Lifetime field name >> wasn't as accurate and expressive as it could be, and then we had >> somebody asking fairly recently on the mailing list about how Router >> Lifetime and ND lifetime (IIRC) values interacted on the mailing list. >> >> So an ID proposing to rename the field to Default Router Lifetime, and >> also providing an example scenario of when a zero value Default Router >> Lifetime would be used to demonstrate that a zero value RA is valid >> and useful in some scenarios. >> >> Comments and suggestions most welcome. >> >> Thanks very much, >> Mark. >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> >> Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 at 18:14 >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime-00.txt >> To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Mark Smith and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime >> Revision: 00 >> Title: More Accurately Naming IPv6 RA Router Lifetime >> Document date: 2021-05-04 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 4 >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime-00.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime/ >> Htmlized: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-6man-accurate-ra-router-lifetime-00 >> >> >> Abstract: >> IPv6 Router Advertisements (RAs) have a "Router Lifetime" field, >> which specifies how long the advertising router will act as a default >> router for the receiving hosts, unless refreshed with another >> advertisement. The field name "Router Lifetime" is quite general, >> and could easily be misunderstood to mean the bounded lifetime of all >> of the information contained in the RA. This memo more accurately >> renames this field "Default Router Lifetime". >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-smith-6ma… Mark Smith
- ID: More Accurately Naming IPv6 RA Router Lifetim… Mark Smith
- Re: ID: More Accurately Naming IPv6 RA Router Lif… Alexandre Petrescu
- RE: ID: More Accurately Naming IPv6 RA Router Lif… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: ID: More Accurately Naming IPv6 RA Router Lif… tom petch