Hi, ICMP Locator Updates are acknowledged. If the sender doesn't receive an acknowledgement from a correspondent, then the sender knows that either (more likely) the correspondent hasn't seen the ICMP Locator Update message yet or (less likely) the ICMP LU ACK was lost. So an unacknowledged LU is sufficient information for the sender to realise that it ought to resend the LU to the correspondent node.
The precise frequency and interval of retransmissions for LU messages is difficult to specify in a precise and correct manner absent more operational experience with ILNP implementations. So we've left that detail for a future specification revision, when there is enough experience to recommend a specific retransmission interval/scheme for LU messages/ACKs. A single received packet that authenticates due to the Nonce option is not sufficient information to know whether or not the previously-known set of Locators remain valid or not. All the receiver knows is that that one Source Locator is valid. So I would not recommend deleting other Locators for that correspondent node from an ILCC instance on the basis of a single received packet. While the ILNP drafts were available for a good while, to give people time to review and comment, the authors have been told very explicitly that no specification edits are allowed at this time. A few implementer-driven clarifications made it in between -05 and -06, but no protocol changes occurred then either. We do welcome questions and feedback, but we can't edit the current ILNP I-Ds, since they are in the RFC Editor queue. Thanks very much, Ran _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
