IETF Logo Mail Archive

rs-refresh

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Thu, 05 March 2015 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B41F1AD368 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:37:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 MSFUOEnhMdUC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (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 14D641A038B for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.22.243.167] ([162.210.130.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t255bqn8005701 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:37:53 -0800
Message-ID: <54F7EBB0.20209@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:37:52 -0800
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: rs-refresh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZ/jQs4jUBc8D22tr12aIb6377NBIGvLJOFt12WByC/zf9AdDfimNHPL8SSBGYFpmr47tPCQqUt24/0A0HZWgyh
X-Sonic-ID: C;pt+FxPnC5BGeXb5YxQPdhw== M;ROWvxPnC5BGeXb5YxQPdhw==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_nRv5GdT3H_AVoVRjPUZ2dKjJTU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 05:37:57 -0000

Before Honolulu I uploaded 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh-00 and this 
draft was mentioned (and briefly discussed) in the efficient-nd design 
team slides.

Do folks think this makes sense? As a 6man WG document?

The idea is to provide an option where the network operator can move 
away from doing periodic multicast RA messages (on links like 3GPP/LTE, 
or WiFi where it is expensive) and instead have the routers instruct the 
hosts to send unicast RS messages to refresh the information - get a 
unicast RA.

This would be optional - there are links where periodic multicast RAs 
are both efficient and reliable and there is no need to change that for 
those links.

Comments welcome,
    Erik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email