Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1

Pavel Simerda <> Tue, 15 May 2012 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50C921F8912 for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 01:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.645
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.954, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jot8qc5-Zusv for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 01:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D6A21F890B for <>; Tue, 15 May 2012 01:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA6C71760684; Tue, 15 May 2012 10:54:28 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1337072068; bh=zrYo5z7HHmzti8/oVd9E3b5NSLm7Ai+Cdyn3eu7mr1A=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; b=UUX2N+2nGkGKr2sDRClQZUjB3lV5wFcr3HB82sHP6sc25QLsjUrw6U7a1NHjtgRN8 uYY/wn65k2Ah+DfMhs0Wtpdrfmp59hzTlSQ/pEUAcZRUxVky23TmmkNhNhlIau8FY3 CRwK6xvh+eYvR3UHCY+GIPptFQrh/T8ot6cbdzzM=
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1
From: Pavel Simerda <>
To: Dan Luedtke <>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:54:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.1 (3.4.1-2.fc17)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 08:54:33 -0000

On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 09:47 +0200, Dan Luedtke wrote:
> > Since then, router solicitations would be issued regularly until
> > client recieves RA with RDNSS, connection is cancelled by user or:
> We have a setup here were we have 50+ clients on some access points
> with about 100 access points distributed over the campus, all merged
> into one network. Let's say we have about 3k clients in the network
> which is a good average value. Let us further assume we loose these
> three RA before they reach the access points, so that no access point
> sends them out. (Of course they usually get lost on some access
> points, not on all at the same time, but it might happen in some
> situations). Since not all clients connected to the network at the
> same time, we assume that one third of them hasn't received the third
> RA in a row at some point in time. At this particular point at least
> 1k clients start sending out RS in a short period of time, at least
> until the first RA makes it through. A way of distributing this RS on
> a time scale might be a good idea. At some point we should use a
> random value to make the hosts delay sending RS with different values
> Long story short: Please include Teemu's suggestion (randomization) in
> a possible errata. IMHO this must be part of it!

I agree. We definitely consider this but also other problems. Looking
forward to publishing the ideas and discussing it here.

Just a note. Current code of NetworkManager for Linux sends RS
non-randomized 5 seconds before expiration.


> FYI: Although I see the race condition and I would also like to see an
> errata on this issue, I'd like to point anyone having problems with
> lossy links to RFC 1256, page 3.
> > Links that suffer high packet loss rates or frequent partitioning are accommodated by increasing the rate of advertisements, rather than increasing the number of solicitations that hosts are permitted to send.
> regards
>   Dan