Neighbor Unreachability Detection Is Too Impatient
RFC 7048

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    6man mailing list <ipv6@ietf.org>,
    6man chair <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Neighbor Unreachability Detection is too impatient' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Neighbor Unreachability Detection is too impatient'
  (draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-07.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud/


Technical Summary:

   IPv6 Neighbor Discovery includes Neighbor Unreachability Detection.
   That function is very useful when a host has an alternative, for
   instance multiple default routers, since it allows the host to switch
   to the alternative in short time.  This time is 3 seconds after the
   node starts probing by default.  However, if there are no
   alternatives, this is far too impatient.  This document specifies
   relaxed rules for Neighbor Discovery retransmissions that allows an
   implementation to choose different timeout behavior based on whether
   or not there are alternatives.  This document updates RFC 4861.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?

  Nothing in particular.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?

   Multiple vendors have plans to implement the specification.

Personnel:

Ole Troan is the Document Shepherd. 
Brian Haberman is the Responsible Area Director.