Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption-02.txt

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 5, 2015, at 10:47, Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I had reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption-00 and fully agreed with the the recommendations in section 4 about implementation and configuration of routers.
> 
> However, in 01 there was a section added (4.2 - now 5.2) with device side recommendations/requirements, with with I have serious reservations at several levels:
> 1. The text uses terms like "maintain IPv6 connectivity" and "disconnect from the IPv6 network" which are not defined. I would not know what impact this has on an implementation with those terms being defined. E.g., does "disconnect" mean to discard all IPv6 addresses and prefixes and release all DHCPv6 leases? Kill all connections? What?

I had to talk verbally with Lorenzo before I understood this properly that A) “maintain IPv6 connectivity” means to delegate either an internal or an external sleep proxy with the task of remaining “reachable” under NUD, e.g. the ECMA ProxyZzzz service or the Bonjour Sleep Proxy service, and that B) “disconnect from the IPv6 network” means to detach from the link, thereby leaving the set of “reachable” nodes under NUD and entailing the commission of the DNAv6 procedure (RFC 6059) when the host reawakens and reattaches to the link.

Perhaps some wordsmithing would be in order, to use terminology more in keeping with the language of RFC 6059.

> 2. Section 5.2 changes (or at least clarifies) the IPv6 standards which seems to not be in scope in the v6ops charter.
> 
> Thus I think section 5.2 should be removed and that discussion be had in the 6man WG.


I’m opposed to that suggestion. The practice described in section 5.2 is necessary today for dealing with behavior of deployed networks that conform to existing standards. If 6MAN wants to clarify or improve the ND6 specification to change the need for the behavior documented here, then that would be splendid, but please count me on the list of people who prefer not to wait for the deliberations in 6MAN to resolve successfully before a practical solution to real world problems can be applied.


—james