Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-maxra-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 05:30:38 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-maxra-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-maxra/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone likely knows this, but is it worth adding a suggestion to retry
rejected RAs with a Router Lifetime of more than 9000 seconds, with a new RA
that uses 9000 seconds?

5.  Host Behavior

   Legacy hosts on a link with updated routers may have issues with a
   Router Lifetime of more than 9000 seconds.  In the few
   implementations we have tested with general purpose operating
   systems, there does not seem to be any issues with setting this field
   to more than 9000, but there might be implementations that
   incorrectly (since RFC4861 requires receivers to handle any value)
   reject such RAs.

I think this meshes with Mirja's suggestion to state whether 9000 is still the
default ...