IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init-05

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 18 September 2020 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8323A0E26; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 AoByL-byKvm6; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C1903A0CC8; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (CPE788a207f397a-CMbc4dfb96bb50.sdns.net.rogers.com [174.116.121.43]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35FDD1F45B; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:00:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C677D1A022D; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAFU7BATk7k_6Xfis2yXxjEEx+1N6GaKZg5MZTkPXpLrsdU8mzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB35651BFF4671D89D12E7703DD8270@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAFU7BATkRYD6m++gb6_is6oU=PGpQDTx8V2vm0gcJEcAnc1Tgg@mail.gmail.com> <3A6E80C9-07FC-4B4E-9A20-D02C8743448F@cisco.com> <CAFU7BATk7k_6Xfis2yXxjEEx+1N6GaKZg5MZTkPXpLrsdU8mzw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> message dated "Wed, 16 Sep 2020 12:32:24 +1000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:00:03 -0400
Message-ID: <101272.1600455603@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/QX9br9KZFmiEAqxQrSkqW78mYwg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init-05
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:00:19 -0000

Section 1.0 says:
  } a new privacy address [RFC4941] or if the router's Neighbor Cache has
  } been flushed.

Are there operational reasons why a router's neighbor cache would be flushed?
Are you just thinking about a normal LRU type expiry from the cache?

The way I read this is because some operator explicited flushed the cache,
and I don't know why that would be done regularly.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email