Hi WG, I expect you saw the recent messages about renumbering, and you may have seen the big discussion in 6man about stable addresses.
I think we are clear that address stability for the autonomic infrastructure is very desirable, but the fact remains that in IPv6 addresses can always change, so GRASP needs to tolerate that. After a little discussion on the design team list, I have two suggestions for GRASP, and a question for the WG: 1) In the description of discovery, we need to say more about the discovery cache timeout After a GRASP device successfully discovers a Discovery Responder supporting a specific objective, it MUST cache this information. This cache record MAY be used for future negotiation or synchronization, and SHOULD be passed on when appropriate as a Divert option to another Discovery Initiator. The cache lifetime is an implementation choice that MAY be modified by network Intent. I suggest adding something more here: In some environments, unexpected address renumbering might occur. In such cases, the cache lifetime SHOULD be short compared to the expected address lifetime and a mechanism to flush the discovery cache SHOULD be implemented. 2) We should also add something to the API, to allow an ASA to optionally flush previously discovered locators. Now the question. Should we add a TTL to discovery responses? It isn't very hard to do. Pro: - This would allow discovery cache timeouts to be tailored per ASA instance instead of per network. Con: - It slightly expands the Discovery Response message. - It adds minor complexity to the discovery cache handling. Comments? Opinions? Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
