* Steven Barth > >If a new host is connecting to the network while you're advertising > >the max(old valid lft, 2h) valid lifetime, it will actually > >auto-configure itself with an address from the withdrawn prefix. If > >you set valid lifetime to 0, it won't. > > Sounds good, i don't mind. Just have to phrase so that it's sent more > than once in any case. We could also say it needs to be sent in 3 > successive RAs independent of the time frame. What do you people > think?
Yes, I think retransmitting those RAs for a while is a good idea. Multicast RAs might get lost, especially on WiFi, and to make matters worse some devices will rate-limit them in order to conserve energy (cf. I-D.ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption). So I'd say firing of a volley of a few (*at least* 3, IMHO) RAs with a short interval immediately following the flash renumbering event sounds sensible. After that you can also include the PIO with PL=VL=0 in the periodic RAs (that you'll presumably be transmitting anyway) for several hours (in order to hopefully get through to any RA rate-limiting devices that might have missed the initial volley). I don't see any damage that could be caused by doing so - devices that saw the initial volley as well as newly-connected devices that never had an address in the prefix to begin with will simply ignore that PIO. Maybe doing that for approx. two hours would make the most sense here, as that's most likely the time the addresses will actually start disappearing from the hosts that saw the initial volley. Tore _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
