Fwd: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-02.txt

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Sat, 01 February 2014 07:50 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B17F1A0542 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:50:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.166
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQjqH38fMn9b for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311CE1A0534 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (184-23-158-201.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s117nqqm015283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:49:52 -0800
Message-ID: <52ECA722.60501@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:49:54 -0800
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Fwd: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-02.txt
References: <52EA9628.4020700@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: <52EA9628.4020700@sonic.net>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <52EA9628.4020700@sonic.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060404020103050905010901"
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: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:50:02 -0000

[Retransmit - I don't think this made it to the list]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-02.txt
Date: 	Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:12:56 -0800
From: 	Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
To: 	Erik Kline <ek@internetdraft.org>, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
CC: 	Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, 
draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs@tools.ietf.org, IETF IPv6 Mailing List 

On 1/29/14 11:41 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
> In such an approach when would the router stop unicasting RAs to a
> particular address? Forever? Until NUD fails? What is the host was
> gone for 30 seconds without the host noticing and as a result the
> router saw a NUD failure.
> I like your “until the router detects a NUD failure for the host” notion, I think.  In that case, I think the host will either:


Sorry for not being clear. That wasn't a proposal of mine but a prod for
some clarification. It doesn't actually work (sorry for having been
terse) since the host has no way to find out when the router saw a NUD
failure and stopped with the unicasts. I wanted to illustrate that this
is harder than it seems. I should have made that more obvious.

>     [1]  enter into NUD detection from its perspective because communications are failing (no replies to packets sent), or
NUD doesn't work that way - each side determines unreachable separately.


>     [2]  it had to packets to send so didn’t notice anything, and then the RA timers get “low” and the host enters into the proposed “retry RSes (probably requiring multicast)” behaviour that launched this thread.
> I do agree that if a network is going to rely on RSes before it sends a periodic RA (say, because the network is one of these split horizon things) some guidelines for the RA-sending side are probably in order, but I’m not yet convinced it’s terribly complicated.
> …but maybe I just haven’t thought about it enough.
> -Erik (the lesser)