Summarizing discussion on draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs

Suresh Krishnan <> Thu, 30 January 2014 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD3C1A04ED for <>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:28:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FbD3EB3nYAv7 for <>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC59D1A04E9 for <>; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:27:58 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f2f8e000002cdc-36-52e9f0ec8060
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A0.B0.11484.CE0F9E25; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:27:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.347.0; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:27:54 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:27:49 -0500
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>
Subject: Summarizing discussion on draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrMJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoO6bDy+DDFZdkbJ4efY9kwOjx5Il P5kCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MqZOuMlY0MlRce/JGZYGxg1sXYycHBICJhIPH95lhrDFJC7c Ww8U5+IQEjjCKDFxxmQoZyujxJy9HawgVbwC2hLXz61nArFZBFQlNl7ZChZnA5q0YednsLio QJhE+4WZzBD1ghInZz5h6WLk4BAR0JK4u0cfJCwsYC/RfnkyI4jNLGArcWHOdRYIW15i+9s5 YK1CApoSW9d8Z4U4TlHixfGfTBMY+WchmToLSfssJO0LGJlXMXKUFqeW5aYbGW5iBAbUMQk2 xx2MCz5ZHmKU5mBREuf98tY5SEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwenVAMj45sf27fEd4Qm K5wTD2bZ8TlpzZ5X+/Z6zbn39eq5i28Zu5dNjstJeFa3RLrvdeyml5LzxLY8EV7vsubfiUrH E9PVeBtdnxyImzinsul7+OVmFt0ciXPrqm2UMtuyMmpyIs+KXTJKmvp70pzYkJqZAnH/fex5 Vq85c7Mt9+OplXdnsjK9X1thqcRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAFhLXtj2AQAA
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: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:28:00 -0000

Hi all,
   I would like to summarize the recent discussion on the resilient rs 
draft and ask for wg opinion on how to go forward with it.

The discussion clearly showed that the draft does not handle the 
scenario laid out in Section 1 bullet b) on networks that have turned 
off periodic RA sending. [Note that scenario c) is still covered since 
the non-multicast capable links need to specify some form of periodic RS 
retransmission to elicit the RA].

There are two ways to resolve this inconsistency. One is to remove 1b) 
as a supported scenario. The other is to add support for periodic RS 
retransmission. The intention of the text in 1b) was to support links 
that do not send periodic (unsolicited) multicast RAs. As Erik Kline 
mentioned, they can still send periodic unicast RAs (i.e. Periodic 
non-initial RSs are not required). Is this a scenario we would like to 
support? It would be great to get the WGs opinion on this and we will 
submit a new revision based on what we hear.