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

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

In your letter dated Sun, 9 Aug 2020 19:28:51 +1000 you wrote:
>I guess we can add to the very end of the Section 4.1.2 (the new text):
>"A node MAY send unsolicited NAs for its preferred addresses
>periodically to refresh the Neighbor Cache on the first hop routers."
>
>On the other hand it might pollute the router NC with entries for
>addresses which the node has configured but is not going to use.
>
>What does the WG think?

A few thoughts:

1) It has to specified how often the host has to refresh entries

2) I think MAY is too weak to rely on. One possibility to deal with 1)
   and 2) is to have an RA option that specifies the interval. Then we
   can make sending the NAs if the option is present a SHOULD or MUST

3) What happens if there are more entries then fit in the router's NC?

4) It has been argued against DHCPv6 IA_NA that hosts may need more 
   addresses than can be handled by the DHCP server. There is an RFC
   that says something to that effect. If so, then we can expect
   more address than can be handled by the router NC as well. I think
   we need to be consistent here. Or is this only for some special 
   networks where host have only few addresses?
   can also expect hoss

5) Hosts have to inform all routers, so this would require hosts to track
   all routers and just a few of them

6) It seems to me that this would something for a new draft