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

Erik Kline <> Fri, 17 July 2015 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB98E1B3123 for <>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.389
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJ5oCfP64COa for <>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C971B3120 for <>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so32322246wib.0 for <>; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V6GFhSOM6VWLqzK7ocS85KnlLvsRAhMtgESgTDcKl+4=; b=RcFRXD0OVKM62v/ihbSxXemKmhnje3DctWCTpeDPJ2s5/+LTRAFVmk/JWUxN/M46mm afXOzvrR+WGlIMDtYadZLiktMoXS5jZfuC9962PCaKyma0vP1oHsnOVw+EOQXRkNCaM9 WGxmZ9vNo5UWBjm/uta61xOkSHmSS7DN5CJnUoOsywYXpL0Zk7bjTA/kPJ37M3+XpbUv fAzgaI8kWTo8mMval8WKze6gH0Mn93+m/8io2YeQ78amLMi18BX65leB5jpS9kNaypua RpXLUNUoC26OVzldqROpogLvEjbd3BT0EwFxauPtg2wMdhXAjOmZFdhU0yexl4IKa/Kz UGBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V6GFhSOM6VWLqzK7ocS85KnlLvsRAhMtgESgTDcKl+4=; b=SxzlU+kJOFfOP+SGzh94PrPDqLV20SHPx4UI9UiL6NzQnvehE/N2Q/selqH9vSgUxa SbF8JPMHyND35vu68lSMHeprm5skNqa8nG+Jf7q4qR5bPYfu6ZgcKv190C33Y0mYAsC8 oYd7KDEnjPJWqQ7kOM9lVZ8eSRPjTufSRHdgDLivIQLsf6m1s9sVDPTwe3B/iyKj7nWD w1JENX8er97tnLUXZRDlNfcJ7Kcol58GR5st6zXMXLnPfg4zm3XbArj4yHwI1+jHdSNU gtlw0pya7XxnsaDbdU/fusXZwAaHzxm02kL0FNt/qTipDmduE+sWLQayIRqD7YuWcPPA dKzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlt68+O/xuI+aska+JEskFmvML/QhEfcilRMRhbmcOSz1adPTIwcKTfdfKdqc1PDxPsG5Uk
X-Received: by with SMTP id l6mr12779503wiz.91.1437119987806; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Erik Kline <>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:59:27 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, v6ops list <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 07:59:50 -0000

On 17 July 2015 at 16:34, Fred Baker (fred) <> wrote:
>> So the next logical thing to do would be to have the router default to
>> unicast Router Advertisements, measure the rate of received Router
>> Solicitations, and switch to multicast RA mode past a certain
>> threshold to cover this sort of situation. Once the number of RSes
>> falls, it switches back to unicast RA mode.
>> That would get rid of the configuration knob proposed in this ID, and
>> is behaviour that I think could be universal for all link types,
>> rather than just for the case of wireless ones with mobile devices.
> If it were me implementing it, I think I would go about this in a little different way, hopefully simpler. I would want to send at most one (e.g., either zero or one) RA per some interval (a second?). In the normal case, that is sent unicast. However, having sent a unicast RA at time t, if I now receive another RS before t+1, I send the next one (at time t+1) as a multicast.

Like what happened with the Happy Eyeballs draft, I think many
strategies will be possible.  It may be best to simply document the
considerations, along with a baseline recommendation that unicast
options of some kind SHOULD be available.

I'd leave it at roughly:

    - multicast RA at least once every max_ra is still a MUST (iirc)
    - unicast RAs MAY be sent at any time, whether solicited or not
    - unicast RAs SHOULD be considered for link layers where this
helps efficiency

The exact strategy for Happy Hosts / Happy Routers (Happy Nodes?) will
likely depend on link layers and use cases, some of which have yet to
be defined.