Subject: comments on draft-ietf-6man-rs-refresh-02

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:44:04 -0800

I have a couple of minor comments on draft-ietf-6man-rs-refresh-02:

- we might want to say the source link-layer address option SHOULD be
  included in RAs that contain the Refresh Time option with U-flag
  being on, since the hosts receiving the RAs are expected to send
  unicast RSes to the router subsequently as described in Section 7:

   [...] Otherwise the host will unicast the RS
   refresh to each router in the default router list.

- On Section 9:

   In addition to the checks in that
   section, the routers SHOULD verify that the RTO have the same Refresh
   Time, and report to system management if they differ.

  I'd note this may be tricky if these routers omit periodic multicast
  RA since their chance of doing this check may be limited to the
  initial gratuitous multicast RAs.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 03:07:03 +0900

Jinmei,
thanks for the comments.

>    unicast RSes to the router subsequently as described in Section 7:
That makes sense.
>    initial gratuitous multicast RAs.

The RA consistency checks are best effort in any case, thus this text is 
merely saying that when a router is receiving an RA on an advertising 
interface it should do what is in RFC4862 plus compare one additional 
thing. But I can note this in the document.
Note that most deployments will presumably need to send periodic RAs 
just in case to support unmodified hosts that do not implement resilient RS.

    Erik

>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:55:07 -0800

At Mon, 14 Nov 2016 03:07:03 +0900,

> thing. But I can note this in the document.

This is not a strong opinion but just a FWIW kind of comment.  Whether
and how to address it is up to you.  In any case,

> just in case to support unmodified hosts that do not implement resilient RS.

I think that noting this observation is a good idea.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya