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

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Sun, 09 August 2020 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 84A0B3A0CCC; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 08:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <JAGuMr4J3RWg>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Cc"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.212, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 JAGuMr4J3RWg; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 08:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1B613A0B47; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 08:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1k4nX7-0000ICC; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 17:46:49 +0200
Message-Id: <m1k4nX7-0000ICC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <96fa6d80137241dd9b57fcd871c8a897@huawei.com> <CAFU7BARePzdeU5DFgoOWyrF0xZCj67_xkC2t8vMN2nH0d8aUig@mail.gmail.com> <37e2a7110f6b423eba0303811913f533@huawei.com> <CAKD1Yr1BJTAfp4PE+DY1yxeMm64kHetqBGYc5iaqZd3u0XrWpA@mail.gmail.com> <E176B084-24E1-434D-B15C-F364F64807BB@cisco.com> <CAFU7BASpHVTQ5SuNsdNu70ejZDnpVuPUaig+0_C=6q+mDQDFXA@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB355844AED3BA019B671797DDD8490@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 7 Aug 2020 08:32:54 +0000 ." <BYAPR11MB355844AED3BA019B671797DDD8490@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 17:46:48 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_h6l0sYtyF507HaWa0No1Inm7kA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-grand : saving lookups
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 15:46:57 -0000

> So what I'm after is the host behavior of "not onlink" for the
> lookup phase, the router behavior of onlink for the redirect phase,
> and the L bit set iff the link is P2P or a transit. E.g., in a
> distributed fabric, all addresses "reside on-link and can be reached
> directly without going through a router" and yet we want to avoid
> broadcast lookups.

Suppose we have a no-multicast bit, that tells a host to send traffic to
its default router when it doesn't have a neighbor in the NC cache.

It is not clear to me how the semantics would be different from clearing the
L-bit, but if you think there are considerable differences, why no write 
a draft that describes the use of such a bit.