IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Linux & draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Wed, 25 March 2015 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
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 826451B2A7B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7HWG9Xc3EWyk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66E2E1B2A10 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgs2 with SMTP id 2so38197567wgs.1 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jIuI93hX2AjlTXRTPZ4mcO2gHtpt0bKN0KH56SulfK4=; b=gQx34JFxDNxak/1PyvACHIY5IdDnIakj/E/WQo+O+cq58eWzKXEMFr0a47RYWFG6xK +HqpT5ecdKnb5T5oRj7IyoZUqIvOtpa2t/KT+YW4GY7GASdKJA1ltYSFKV3Q3U3zmEC4 bX+Q32oXWoP+6beIPs4D5cIdV1pEpyrqqwXxwHSLFF9rsGpgPrIhoedSEJHoPhFRbmKn qvXevyqhXJ3vsdGqYz4oJMxbTfcSXqvD/RuPKhJDUvM4z8gZRyheXtmFoZ7m7ZgLXZVA r8Y/VHE627H6ThH0F+9v3TPIKcnOSxMuHLdDruTFBurSQ94nmXH/uDE5DZqWUivAOdMS of9w==
X-Received: by 10.180.24.65 with SMTP id s1mr40286068wif.30.1427308797232; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.58.76 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5512F64B.50805@si6networks.com>
References: <55102C6B.1060608@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2XfeSuQAj94kN1AF_8cet2L+uEkJnO59NyYgtwyfXu7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3YBdjSkwgoAzTXs_dvoiRnSFReE5-fAO7RggvVLwDthw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BASXNe6TXWt7R2+tBjiob8n23VpBV5THV5hJxSHV-wKo5A@mail.gmail.com> <55118F3B.3000308@si6networks.com> <CAFU7BAQX95WmBu1r=yp38pZ3tEBrxdEX32cvHE7A8AkLjESSEA@mail.gmail.com> <5511EF4C.1050908@si6networks.com> <CAFU7BASTCrPrz+KT-45R5ojL1PVBPu4zFBnnbEJZ10vVW96btA@mail.gmail.com> <5512F64B.50805@si6networks.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 19:39:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAREa8Ju2h3HF+J6Zfq0q9swB-bqHOWyqhMasnQ0u6Z47w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux & draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rGJdadE2Gb5phgz409nMvSrg2os>
Cc: draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues@tools.ietf.org, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:39:59 -0000

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> On 03/25/2015 06:46 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:
>> Again, I totally agree that the lifetime value probably should not be
>> limited to 2x MaxRtrAdvInterval
>> and it should be fixed. However I strongly object updating RFC6106 with
>> 'The default value of AdvRDNSSLifetime and AdvDNSSLLifetime MUST be at
>> least 10*MaxRtrAdvInterval'.
>> I think we shall remove "<2x MaxRtrAdvInterval" limitation in 6106, that's it.
>
> Fair enough. Although there are two issues here:
>
> 1) Allowed bounds
> 2) Default value
>
>
> For #1, removing the upper bound is good enough. But there's still #2.

I like Ole's suggestion:
“the value of the Lifetime SHOULD by default be bounded by Router Lifetime”.
As Router Lifetime by default is 3 * MaxRtrAdvInterval, we can use that value...

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email