Re: nd6 'stale' timer unreasonably long?

> Subject: Re: nd6 'stale' timer unreasonably long?

> I don't get how this is completely ignored.

It may not be completely ignored, even if you can't see how it's not.
(I can't either, but I'm even further from it.)

> Even the people who somehow still can't figure out line wrapping in 2026 *sh$

If you mean me - my impression is I'm the major person who still
bothers to call people on paragraph-length lines - I can figure out
line wrapping just fine.  Just look at my messages: they are
line-wrapped exactly where I want them to be.  You seem to be expecting
everyone else to scroll right as far as necessary to read your mail.
(If you *want* people to rewrap your text, there's a spec for that; see
RFC 2646.)

As for caring about nd6 stale timers, well, I use v6 routinely, but
only on 1.4T and 5.2, and with only a relatively small pool of hosts
that changes very slowly; a 24hr gc timer is fine for my purposes.
Until checking just now I wasn't even sure whether 5.2 _had_ the 24hr
timer this thread was about.  (It does.  1.4T doesn't.)

> The sad truth seems to be:  The only reason nobody else is affected by this $

NetBSD is fringe (I both like and dislike that, but it's relatively
true regardless).  IPv6 is still moderately fringe (that I dislike).
And networks public enough to run into a 5k entry limit within 24 hours
are moderately rare.

Put all that together, and, yes, there are probably only a few sites
that will trip over this - and most of _them_ will probably just switch
to something that works better under that stress and forget it.

> I'll stop caring now since we run this patch, if it doesn't go upstream, it $

That's sort of been my attitude for a long time.  I still care, but I
can't afford the mental and emotional drain of allowing that caring to
be more than background for me.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		[email protected]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B