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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sun, 09 August 2020 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 C3E6D3A0D14 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:03:36 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Rw6eHjrSqTz1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf33.google.com (mail-qv1-xf33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C15E3A0D08 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf33.google.com with SMTP id l13so3120422qvt.10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 09:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=4MPqPgrtQBcaESP0NBhtoUzmOKP7kBTWqRgXgpq0mWM=; b=cWq9Dtwv+rK4P5RZF3ybRpip3yDMkphUAfyxa1Z0srgFVkZK+6C9sy8/bhoolulTBN TRtjXUgF/jIsvIEgMBsLKWjuNORsIUkIPr7L+4+5GrnCJa4R4xglE7CoPUFcdX9ucp3+ W0CxNlIGFpdbMwqL/zW33KBhADUxhhNNDqej7Pi6RmDykkXyAWS3u1eHywwBG8gQDBig 1kYEv7JtUq5NdSsLMoSZWH1ACkrNT8Ym22GejRlZXmltUG2iqrnWrjbno4flP95zhA0H UHOnp+PZcNsXasUVvaEH9HtVojWQPfWMHMC+u7O54k1EEODdxiD3EcN3u9UPk3tgrxQv 554Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=4MPqPgrtQBcaESP0NBhtoUzmOKP7kBTWqRgXgpq0mWM=; b=mVE0u6s/gYlQikiuoGQb4UCiDZDDiZdjQo/9qfWVYMVlwZqh65YbIcbYueW8zP1G+e 7nDqmebfttFkZZAk2C0V6Wd8j0/dqO691pDNbVG6Pt+l9T/bQmcZWIOHxG/U66xrG1/t xR86zkcTU7CbhoFaEG/VrfaWMFTRohqPy+rGCKxZpvt2K3RhrCsEjecttjrzT5l+seti f1nCcQlxddIj/IvmUgC+mbgwubEE9uKEaxdt3GrYtB7PQRudPKo9WQ/yfFjdmbXSKwC3 8lpAc2H041eO/RQmIBXlAWKQr4H4vUMcxrDNQGptM+9bY8S98mBh/4sOZaaAPJymkfbZ IYBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nr0BsSD7PcZY0pj/POTvSydRGOt/nxXdi0XNE3V4JOpA7foyT h74Rjdh3Zw3jQdOhNGv3KVstlDoOjwJXKA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzmjKfWVNYp1dOUu4owou/09Mw6Nv5aQ4OORVLu57coKEioMzEvnOVoWmY/0nhUR2/CrYAgLg==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:442d:: with SMTP id e13mr24581945qvt.81.1596989014093; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 09:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2601:18b:300:36ee:d9e4:f1a8:7046:ed49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t69sm11547765qka.73.2020.08.09.09.03.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2020 09:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 12:03:32 -0400
Message-Id: <1D1A68AE-4C75-4DF0-8C7C-3500DB67C8FB@fugue.com>
References: <m1k4nX7-0000ICC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1k4nX7-0000ICC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A349)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/aXCB4s7P3lICMN1YyESIwF8TK6Y>
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 16:03:37 -0000

Do we have data that indicates that this would be an improvement?  

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 11:47, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------