Re: comments on draft-ietf-6man-rs-refresh-02

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 14 November 2016 17:55 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1229c98b-81b0-6415-2b57-a652b57c6d85@sonic.net>
References: <CAJE_bqe=yKfeJEba=ddsSaY1=8Nh35gEJ17y9jtqD5VzjUKG2w@mail.gmail.com> <1229c98b-81b0-6415-2b57-a652b57c6d85@sonic.net>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:55:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqdt757+ks3apHAwyv-G7hhj=VEoD1GV0DO3xi7o+z0kxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-6man-rs-refresh-02
To: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/oN9IQ1nygqbb_YqZFLhhU6Bqehc>
Cc: IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

At Mon, 14 Nov 2016 03:07:03 +0900,
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net> wrote:

> > - On Section 9:
> >
> >     In addition to the checks in that
> >     section, the routers SHOULD verify that the RTO have the same Refresh
> >     Time, and report to system management if they differ.
> >
> >    I'd note this may be tricky if these routers omit periodic multicast
> >    RA since their chance of doing this check may be limited to the
> >    initial gratuitous multicast RAs.
>
> The RA consistency checks are best effort in any case, thus this text is
> merely saying that when a router is receiving an RA on an advertising
> interface it should do what is in RFC4862 plus compare one additional
> thing. But I can note this in the document.

This is not a strong opinion but just a FWIW kind of comment.  Whether
and how to address it is up to you.  In any case,

> Note that most deployments will presumably need to send periodic RAs
> just in case to support unmodified hosts that do not implement resilient RS.

I think that noting this observation is a good idea.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

comments on draft-ietf-6man-rs-refresh-02 神明達哉
Re: comments on draft-ietf-6man-rs-refresh-02 Erik Nordmark
Re: comments on draft-ietf-6man-rs-refresh-02 神明達哉