[v6ops] Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-06: (with COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-06: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3.1.1.

I think a reference to RFC3704 (specifically written for describing ingress
filtering for multihomed networks) might be a good addition here to RFC2827

* Sections 3.2.1., 3.2.2. etc.

=> I think it is important to specify (at least the bounds of) the valid
lifetimes here as well. e.g. when the preferred lifetime is getting set to zero
it is important to specify that the valid lifetime is set to a non zero value
so that the host will form an address at all (even though it will not be used
when there are preferred addresses). This is important to reduce the potential
packet losses when the preferred uplink goes down.

* Section 3.2.2.

I think there is some text missing here about VRRP priorities here. There seems
to be an assumption in the draft that the uplink A failure will lead to R1
becoming backup ("If ISP_A uplink is down, then R1 becomes a backup.") and this
is not obvious at all. There needs to be a priority change with interface
tracking if this has to happen and the backup has to take over as the master.