(usagi-users 00693) Re: Updating address lifetime (again)

[Alakoski Teemu <alakoski@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Pekka Savola wrote:

> This _might_ be a bug in "TWO_HOURS" rule, see
> addrconf.c:addrconf_prefix_rcv.  Also see RFC2462 5.5.3. e). (this has
> been updated slightly by so-called "Jim Bound rule" afterwards)
>
> I don't spot it right out though; this:
>
> --8<--
>                 if (!update_lft) {
>                         if (valid_lft > TWO_HOURS ||
>                             valid_lft > ifp->valid_lft) {
>                                 update_lft = 1;
> --8<--
>  _seems_ to be proper.  If you advertise 7200 seconds, and valid lifetime
> drops below that, it should be updated.  But if you advertised e.g. 600
> seconds, it would be updated only after StoredLifeTime drops below 600
> seconds.
>
> So, I'm assuming this is might be a problem in your testing methodology
> (made advertised lifetime really low and didn't wait long enough).

This sounds really promising. But if I set valid lifetime of 100 sec in RA
and boot my host, RA:s aren't still accepted. I suppose that after booting
StoredLifeTime is same as RA:s valid lifetime?

Reason why I use low lifetimes relates to our experiments with MIPv6.

__________________________________
Teemu Alakoski, Research assistant

TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Telecommunications Laboratory,
Networks and Protocols Group

alakoski@xxxxxxxxx 050-5935486
__________________________________