IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
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 82E9C1A00B2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 h10hHsLEB-nN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) (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 61E421A004C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ietj16 with SMTP id j16so139664914iet.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=oiNjv5FgkBKNb63xNFFvr93RcNafvaUgcNPVgfJDmy4=; b=oCuNH3Sm4vnUJUdb6Bq6D6gjWenfabSD2MIFLK7BJlWGmyAuMZpIodYMp1KCkMSgie WmoOZd6DYqU581D5UE03yZ6ePF0+/G3FPs/evYLdWkvEEqOp+n8J8IvadwKT3/vPpmbi 4STg+QyiOrd7R7hHoBkaLe92MblqZ7GeN3v9tmrYAY4KYk1StRO8EJryk9beBxOkaMNw QwfwBqIaxrxy9pHRb+jUJYlQ5hS12vzGWxUUFwhOAaYfZmPPEYU4WApA1KyoMAk0foU6 dk6iy8vTFtFg8l3s8gAAJZUWwGlb9y7Pc5aVUYNL9jn+qYbJaXzNKpliYvwmIIaSw03k 2wKg==
X-Received: by 10.50.3.6 with SMTP id 6mr21701908igy.28.1437477947798; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.169.143 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxoX1dD3MQO5YCS6+u1esThW0sVv=JMmivJXZ92FKZ0sZg@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAO42Z2w3fOxGJHasKqYZRfGZ2u=7FnZBm+jgLtgDvfZ7HYW=iw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z+DwOin23HQTysrZ9dNP924+LQ-vOExmJc_xZUEB4yCQ@mail.gmail.com> <228248C6-94FE-4C9C-A875-F732EFDC6601@cisco.com> <CAAedzxqapiWuy4Gk5t3zEe3XmaLyRc3nc5=aA1ED0tzfeXckbA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Hn9qJTaM0v3+hr7NfQbLc=mOWYGwrTK-XXxKp5v+dpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxpdFsCy2Y7U0gFmQeHEvJjNj-243g_ffoJsVUeRz5RpZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1uR+HyBTB=Yhy5hGs1Z6Wv=HT3wwFgLYDosDJ7a78-PA@mail.gmail.com> <D1D2A832.1B7D8F%sgundave@cisco.com> <CAAedzxoX1dD3MQO5YCS6+u1esThW0sVv=JMmivJXZ92FKZ0sZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:25:18 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2w8D+G7ONS5uXDP2kgf4da2JgiHHubEMt3TVumfFbkWOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/tSPHRY5nwwivrnN5KeIkQj09Tc8>
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:25:49 -0000

On 21 July 2015 at 21:02, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
> On 20 July 2015 at 22:34, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Did you guys look at RFC-6085 ? We published this clarification mainly to
>> support per-MN prefix model on shared links, by the use of L2 unicast RA's.
>> Is that not sufficient ?
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6085 seems useful and it should be referenced.
>

I thought that could be an option, however I encountered RSes without
the Source Link Layer Option, which means if RFC6085 is to be used,
the link-layer header has to be available to get the source link-layer
address from.

After I wondered about the efficiency benefit of using multicasts for
solicited RAs, Fred asked me to do some testing/investigation. I wrote
up what I found here, the few unusual RS cases I saw the following,
which I put down some thoughts about handling via e.g., RFC6085.

o  RSes with a :: source address

o  RSes with a link-local source addresses, but no Source Link-Layer
Address Option

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22464.html




https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22464.html

> But I would not say it's sufficient, if only from an "explicit
> clarity" standpoint.  I think explicit mention of RAs and the other
> discussion is helpful for implementors not inclined to dig to great
> depths or just seeking explicit confirmation.
>




> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email