IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 09 July 2015 05:09 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 C057C1A901F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:09:29 -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 UY4Fpf1JoNwG for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com (mail-ie0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]) (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 A6E351A9006 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ieru20 with SMTP id u20so26270373ier.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:09:28 -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=weXtT+2jV/IKKVdSXmE18WlNQAjKOn1PRoJPwKyLraY=; b=s2KitJ6uKUy3qsUqSyDJ7lruejxc9c/lmb52B2F/O/W/kG9kd6tct1rhLnUOuCGjBF nGHdDEc0z3Ro6ECvSSTUgVtPgmGfFqHdgJ9SOGzeDk5gj2DJPSOekw7NA+pfg7tudi/p k/g0SFSei0eIK5G+ToHt8kSPM4Y4e2fewEy30rHtmUS4YYh6E9g3dYoR+JyuPUdj72r2 Brb0xzF0G65e8BqcDuALfkTgIsU+ocVG7130NE9KLn8KavAhwqTkCte79wmQQC5zt/Uo EfaVQ3+byPGsQ30oJo/fuD2VzL+sItf7iZ3L9Qv8zhWgGpYFhCtQctUiuoYIH6ShR5+O Pixg==
X-Received: by 10.50.102.68 with SMTP id fm4mr67259319igb.25.1436418568080; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.205.5 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201507071147.t67Bl13m009348@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
References: <201507071147.t67Bl13m009348@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:08:58 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2x7mNFbB_w_+W+80pY+LeCAKXaOBXMmQvkcaMSWhwW60g@mail.gmail.com>
To: fred@cisco.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ttlIW7-PHb-fXpSp3eTmswLbiWM>
Cc: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast@tools.ietf.org, 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, 09 Jul 2015 05:09:29 -0000

Hi,

I support the adoption of this draft.

One thought I have though is that I wonder if just changing solicited
RAs from multlicast to unicasts would result in an increase in the
number of multicast RSes?

It was my understanding that the idea behind multicasting solicited
RAs was to also update hosts who were soon going to be issuing
multicast RSes, which would then reduce the volume of multicast RSes.
If those hosts are now not going to receive the multicast solicited
RAs, then they I think they would now be issuing multicast RSes more
often where as in the past they wouldn't.

As a side note, the radvd RA daemon already supports a UnicastOnly option:

--
UnicastOnly on|off
Indicates that the interface link type only supports unicast. This
will prevent unsolicited advertisements from being sent, and will
cause solicited advertisements to be unicast to the soliciting node.
This option is necessary for non-broadcast, multiple-access links,
such as ISATAP.

Default: off
--

The issue of increased numbers of multicast RSes would be avoided on
e.g., ISATAP networks because hosts using that use static, DHCPv4 or
DNS lookups to discover routers instead of multicast RSes.

Regards,
Mark.

On 7 July 2015 at 21:47,  <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast. Please take a look at it and comment.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email