Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 11 August 2020 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4418D3A03F5 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8sGQdWOf84-s for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD64D3A03EE for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b25so10040542qto.2 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=4lSQFzVIhbPImimXoMUh8sHtW2fbGLwpxSNvv9BR/F0=; b=dAiuxQsgWF6eZszWZ4h+FRBmpqmoRt5DLqVHNTeeQITTH948/kvXPpcreQwiimbH1h OxzhVtOAO5R7DfvSuVXAFxp/SHTeIiVUiCNWCNXE96GtS/z+XtemX7JKl+G9ufvOoFbY TRIGuxKkbcAGxuVMl/ZPkwhT9pO9QtgIcm0lgaT1s7avP60/MOcvZkYm1ndoRLZvqtNF 0BoCBzNfZU1jEi5JAJd0rRcrDOf1+cueymIaMOqwKUfVP2lW5SNGTPkVchzu8jybwR9I M/+/Xsb5wp4YMekPVm4El97LFmEP7ZoimnKwgcy4akZ2y9DG0aYY7fWzuvxtVi+Qlk/5 NqYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=4lSQFzVIhbPImimXoMUh8sHtW2fbGLwpxSNvv9BR/F0=; b=QileCE9G1CEzS8hYCGV6YG8VDkUqT1+jNCuO645eI8NF5XKhLyfzu7I7gJsHk+MwLR rh4LGWLwo07OQkiSOKoOcIItpXlcWDYQjSR0XJGGk51p5R71ARk3LLsv5asmCC9ddTzy JuSklhZC1ULWLyzaDOlFVa66EHLGKqQh2Ky45mBR1z05hZ/JZvxFdgaHSgeMT0PxZNJ5 FfU23s+nkbVTEokWiFNHasJCfMTjLV6hDYVgBdFluYUcRAnNpQE7iTSl8opZH3B26G/o bGv2zie979NCMTCjTghwlxKcXFY7CRITvhj7WIMwa0sETOPQJtPTwcZhFSt08An4l6t5 8TQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YjcDT9P1ovR88LzZU24p6yorDFPZvP+uXi3HWgYfYhm0Jp920 MeF0+t4rRhLlxgzboCxmr8fUmg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwO6KDhPAScVFz3+ueKUvjIEXfBZkjKxrGQl7PZ28Yz4W2NYYZ8BkfNhjR0nZkaTzKkOwKpLQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4b52:: with SMTP id e18mr2230173qts.231.1597167351561; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2601:18b:300:36ee:b88e:901b:ad8b:f1fc]) by with ESMTPSA id n15sm17678719qkk.28.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8F35E62C-9A2B-45F0-BDB3-D077D336067D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3652.\))
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:35:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, Nick Hilliard <>, "" <>, IPv6 List <>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3652.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 17:35:54 -0000

On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:20 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <> wrote:
> I have more or less punted on the subject of SLAAC and consider the NBMA links I am
> dealing with as link-local-only. SLAAC brings the problem of what to do about DAD
> and MLD. I think on-link prefixes on large NBMA links are an unnecessary burden
> and should be avoided – do you see it differently?

No, I think you’re making the right choice for your use case. But for a typical WiFi network, the scale is smaller both in terms of time and number of nodes.
> Address resolution is a different question, though; if a node on the NBMA link wants
> to resolve the address of a subnet router for a target destination it can send NS(AR)
> to the solicited-node multicast address corresponding to the target. The “multicast”
> will then go to exactly one node, which is the target subnet router, and the resultant
> NA(AR) is unicast back to the (single) node that sent the NS. Very efficient, and
> again without disturbing the massive numbers of other nodes on the link.

Do WiFi base stations implement this correctly, or do they broadcast?