Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-11.txt

Fred Baker <> Thu, 28 September 2017 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D410B1342E6 for <>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 WAvcK4oM96eA for <>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 907B4132025 for <>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r74so3563875wme.5 for <>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=E+6boN8QlfjhtR9JWGW+I3Jw5O9AwboOxEhAIj67aqs=; b=EKe+ujhn4w6CNaTjKdwbAZfkFpCLGpxMw1RDBiGM764OeeuDvDDRke6s3o7L4lQ46c d/YAYwojEYMYTQT7fl8/8C+tqdb2/LmImlCjKxIFPfF++79wPvkiA5G3700TYGgVy0yx Q/5aPVUIDUEmBK4U6tbKM3ryLJxKJXaBm79I6ONHt7MbA1F00Agwvf+rt7r+W8Gg4uja oasjVIXZjTDKafYkjHaL5W8csbuYT/wbrGxB7nQ85bCMp9Nq0PhIcLp4FUS46XThx35D lFmnFKK/3y8DFt7izD0H3qhssS6aOJV+BsgqLhHqvYhi5393+2Qq05VUVF08mNB2v1jR Sykg==
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=E+6boN8QlfjhtR9JWGW+I3Jw5O9AwboOxEhAIj67aqs=; b=LLdQJHuIgCWzFbX2zzISc08n0c6ON/BIskklTjwfzaAnySKY3WW5KGQ/tDKMAPVmsZ HS0dPp+seBh1ka5dCH9C4dHHqvfFOOhSxd2aJQWpZduWrtfAdMiqsm9wxjwAbotE19qC 1feRrVAwAWNhUOT42wzbHHGqGHdZ6zSI/1zHhy6f0S4WQhq3kyhpHFu0+/UTOPRNOM5o cvQLlTQfLu6fYUck7tp7ixPeTmGYtIyiKJFOdpVtn0fCKaup0JX50FYDVu934N4dFgrq rQvp2zI2CltdXkI3lNSkL9Z0dQtTJ5SPmPVe1104DThC8SCv7+7zcNAnBoyD5OzlkZMX O8Ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUEffs7ZSurP4jsvwU66KMImUw5UduKat7KYScwgYpMEvbYcR4K NKtEENG6L/QvTyzohVBmM0Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDx/iwfSrX1lE5eEINq7IK41o7I3CcXctrXMxd13nxKG+OmydsdF6iNdDLtsWG8DgJcqbx5tg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x86mr1707832wma.57.1506618037080; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5600:e::119b? ([2600:8802:5600:e::119b]) by with ESMTPSA id v5sm551460wme.5.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_128B12C8-6B7B-4CE4-BBD3-3C6128571071"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.6\))
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:00:32 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <>, "" <>
To: David Farmer <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.6)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-11.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:00:40 -0000

> On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:08 AM, David Farmer <> wrote:
> I like most of the changes, however I find the following bullet somewhat confusing;
> o  Maximum IPv6 Router Advertisement Interval = 300s (or when battery
>    consumption is a concern then a MinRtrAdvInterval of 514 seconds
>    (1/7 of an hour) is better according RFC7772 [RFC7772]).
> It starts out talking about the *Maximum* Router Advertisement Interval, then with little explanation shifts to talking about the *Minimum* Router Advertisement Interval, I fear this will easily confuse any casual readers.  Furthermore, the IPv6 router implementations I'm familiar with, don't allow you to directly set the Minimum Router Advertisement Interval, it is automatically computed as 75% of the Maximum Router Advertisement Interval, as recommended in RFC4861. Therefore, in such implementations the Maximum Router Advertisement Interval would need to be set at 685 seconds.
> Also, as Lorenzo pointed out, there is no discussion of IPv6 Router LifeTime, which is also discussed in RFC7772.

The bit about the inter-router-advertisement interval was at my suggestion. Lorenzo had complained that the draft didn't do anything to meet RFC 7772. That was changed somewhere between -07 and -10. However, it resulted in only specifying MaxRtrAdvInterval. If we want to have no more than seven RAs per hour (per RFC 7772), it is MinRtrAdvInterval that is important. 514=3600/7, hence the specification of MinRtrAdvInterval.

May I suggest you suggest text? What would you like it to say?