IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 16 July 2015 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC491A0372 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 9mRjZL5soAXW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FE0D1A0367 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBFFA625B; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=5cqDi7l49MXLuQulYxs2gjXNxog=; b= ZeS45A+TK/53SYmtFjPfUkktVwLbJLXIovBmt+GkdvEZOpPNidVIoN73rKBun/y9 vlAoA6tVOWMOVSPoePphp3Yeo870NMx/+uwtXXO/WyOOPcNXCQ4T7sJPhwK8Dhq5 qPwTR7x5Fmt1CeAhDzXf1XjyUgSef3QVjRJkpeZm8gQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=SOVfq0mkW1qaiKdUhWmh4hlF07 OaPbTqS6vA6RS2XLaVpyeauHUoYl51lOcZyvrkPwGmS3yfc0QS7hbDv2mLzo4dU4 2Ag1KBujAqZNjkrpU2PZ3ADOlstUYMWDp/kU1saDTqLUsyu9ISt+ttdzV3jsF9+t Y9pwSicA+8ol/Vnmc=
Received: from gomlefisk.localdomain (unknown [173.38.220.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B62F261CE; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gomlefisk.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566A64927D08; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:01:03 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_36108C5F-A718-41DA-80A9-D87DD59641D3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <85CADAA2-8DF2-4A6B-812B-7A77081936F5@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:01:02 +0200
Message-Id: <2D55FD9C-6DE5-4C50-8E75-74CF66E07AAF@employees.org>
References: <201507071147.t67Bl13m009348@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <CAO42Z2x7mNFbB_w_+W+80pY+LeCAKXaOBXMmQvkcaMSWhwW60g@mail.gmail.com> <EF21B630-5D0A-415A-A93F-9058900CC80C@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2zAqMXhBZ2wa=q0wtHGhMpMWU9TSjfFyd2quiki9w0oSw@mail.gmail.com> <85CADAA2-8DF2-4A6B-812B-7A77081936F5@cisco.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/m6CDAHErT1R6lJ1XzM--kXwy3mc>
Cc: "draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast@tools.ietf.org" <draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast@tools.ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:01:09 -0000

>> I think this means that unicasting solicited RAs on certain link types
>> would usefully reduce multicasts. It does raise the question as to why
>> solicited RAs were multicast in the first place.
> 
> Not sure. RFC 826, which is the obvious predecessor, calls for the response to an ARP request to be unicast.

I believe it was thought of as an optimisation.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email