IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 21 July 2015 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E331A0021 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 03:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 zxOCvmEqhcxn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 03:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 231B21A001A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 03:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB3861CA; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 03:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=IEpVBHMXT1iwE/k+Xat9Ux4WHxQ=; b= gzZOYLM4aizf4XdKC20VzdKYWMX5Hu6XTEMPleeGauB95ztlmJ84ql5LlERHFUaQ e97Ib/MEC/9zcLNgvicsrP1GzQuV4570ioT476SwEOAz1GfArPDQK1rf1kAzEVl4 ZdHRpA/wqurUjvxm+OchH0CmltLMIz5JY5NqNIs/8iM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=mnV53KDFvI4EcoZ71ocLMaVvhC dPu0uau3GFVD1x/pxQ0yFnaaBZEJCIDzsJnkjXw4MGJh0TlbV7QficOXVr75HCtl EEexBujPFwfAkgswZMEnRvOIR391jBiELtM5d45LoCkyNFbgP4/9a2Na5yZzrtlj VS3xQp/prmrPu8sjs=
Received: from gomlefisk.localdomain (dhcp-aa75.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.170.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B6AA61C9; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 03:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gomlefisk.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CEC74967B8E; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:47:12 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AB9E6B76-B00F-40AE-B800-DABEBE677289"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <55AD3B64.5070400@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:47:11 +0200
Message-Id: <AA2C4CCF-CFE0-4027-AE92-21352EC93EEA@employees.org>
References: <201507071147.t67Bl13m009348@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <CAO42Z2x7mNFbB_w_+W+80pY+LeCAKXaOBXMmQvkcaMSWhwW60g@mail.gmail.com> <EF21B630-5D0A-415A-A93F-9058900CC80C@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2zAqMXhBZ2wa=q0wtHGhMpMWU9TSjfFyd2quiki9w0oSw@mail.gmail.com> <85CADAA2-8DF2-4A6B-812B-7A77081936F5@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2w3fOxGJHasKqYZRfGZ2u=7FnZBm+jgLtgDvfZ7HYW=iw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z+DwOin23HQTysrZ9dNP924+LQ-vOExmJc_xZUEB4yCQ@mail.gmail.com> <228248C6-94FE-4C9C-A875-F732EFDC6601@cisco.com> <55AD3B64.5070400@acm.org>
To: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/AbgUx8qo1bGUCEKL-N8zqvFSFpc>
Cc: "draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast@tools.ietf.org" <draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast@tools.ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:46:59 -0000

> But in terms of implementation, isn't it simpler to always(*) respond to a RS with a unicast RA?
> As background, the text in RFC4861 comes from the old concern that all devices might boot at the same time when the power is re-established after a building power failure; that doesn't happen since most devices (laptops, smartphones, IoT devices) have batteries today. In that case it might have made sense to sending fewer RA messages by using multicast.

in addition to Mark’s points.
 - what happens when the router reboots, will not all the hosts then try to actively reconnect?
   that router could server thousands of users.
 - while this is intended for WIFI networks, in common deployments the WIFI interface is not integrated in the router. for the router’s perspective this just looks like another wired interface. either this has to be made configurable and not the default, or considerations of large flat wired L2 networks must also be considered.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email