[6lo] Advocating a generalisation of RFC8505 to non-6lo LANs

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 04 July 2019 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC70B12001B; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 03:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=GzQSa5wj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=AiTPx1vF
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47Wc6yGD5mFe; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79E021200C7; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4242; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562236091; x=1563445691; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BK+t+hAksRl/s8ku1m4YfRE7aiVNiXIruktwIvUWiGw=; b=GzQSa5wjEoQ/mHdXpZdgXiiyzZlk6Rrd40Oov4IW/j72g8JO0R57OfFw OFuRoZu5pNq/a2Obw94vKbfAPaG4+8I99IDKsyrJ3AaQW4E4cirhfrf26 uYqRojmlzc3KTJ5VyU9ldXvai2UtsptQaUWx3vvCaVHh/qNGme9ry3VJY o=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A6qacvhcORR4t7Tt4VDECvgwPlGMj4e+mNxMJ6p?= =?us-ascii?q?chl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwGQD57D5adCjOzb++D7VGoM7IzJkUhKcYcEFn?= =?us-ascii?q?pnwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/dzA6Ac5PTkNN9HCgOk8TE8H7NBXf?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ClAACp0x1d/4QNJK1mHQEBBQEHBQG?= =?us-ascii?q?BVAcBCwGBQ1ADalUgBAsohByDRwOOSoJbiU2NeYEugSQDVAkBAQEMAQEjCgI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAYFLgnUCF4ITIzUIDgEDAQEEAQECAQVtijcMhUoBARcREQwBATgLBgEZBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQICJgIEHxEVCAkBBAESCBqDAYFqAx0BAgybVQKBOIhgcYEygnkBAQWBRkG?= =?us-ascii?q?DDg0LghIJgQwoAYRxhm0XgUA/gRFGgh6BcIEWRwEBAgEBgUcYgwgygiaLdES?= =?us-ascii?q?CMZsbQAkCghcDhlOJN4QOl3ONMIc+gXOOBQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUgI0gVhwFTu?= =?us-ascii?q?CbAmCOIMdVIUUhT9yAQGBJ4sOKoIoAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,450,1557187200"; d="scan'208";a="368507240"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 Jul 2019 10:28:10 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (xch-rcd-016.cisco.com [173.37.102.26]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x64ASA0L012336 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:28:10 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (173.37.102.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 05:28:09 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 05:28:09 -0500
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:28:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=BK+t+hAksRl/s8ku1m4YfRE7aiVNiXIruktwIvUWiGw=; b=AiTPx1vFs8yCyWIfAfzRCmPfmLzGQ5oxv09Mu8zaPsqxuq8fkYyYddjhX5BGTOBjslilWiMCi8y/wYBbxqpZ4sESA8r5pUlfO7Tz82dcS9Af3uE1wBaXOOUHQ/JaW+5hNse4vGXoeHr6dDgmrtkNE5IfrH9oxhWf4qbQ35/7+04=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB4493.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.38.215) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2032.20; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:28:08 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1ce9:1582:146c:c50a]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1ce9:1582:146c:c50a%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:28:08 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Advocating a generalisation of RFC8505 to non-6lo LANs
Thread-Index: AdUyUv8Sti4DS832TlSes7S8iQL/Vw==
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:28:08 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:27:53 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB35656135A0513A6DC0AD87E3D8FA0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c0:1008::1d]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b8244ffc-f98a-488b-7a53-08d7006a4ed8
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB4493;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4493:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 7
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB44931E6E06D82B78A9F07B63D8FA0@MN2PR11MB4493.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0088C92887
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(13464003)(51444003)(199004)(189003)(66946007)(55016002)(76116006)(6306002)(73956011)(66446008)(86362001)(6436002)(52536014)(53936002)(9686003)(2501003)(66556008)(2906002)(25786009)(110136005)(186003)(8936002)(66476007)(33656002)(102836004)(5660300002)(64756008)(486006)(476003)(53546011)(8676002)(66574012)(81166006)(68736007)(6116002)(256004)(966005)(478600001)(99286004)(6506007)(7696005)(316002)(46003)(14444005)(14454004)(7736002)(81156014)(71190400001)(71200400001)(74316002)(305945005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4493; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: GeCNecQHRbHkc61NDALh32CKIkJRANyXgnxKGYoRfwdrom/xrJvBVp5mNKCP9tPD0+YxYF7+pFpj6NLrbuKY68CSt0chhYzoadeCfsTGb2fMj5n2IAJDm7l4Y0GE/afoKRWWIC4Qzt+FmFrfYrchdNU9vaE/sFEWeNQ4CdeWHxoJrqxTKd3tiOlGaz/krHKcGt8FMbZgnolInuvSqDjp4wzCLPwk/YmWwKyHPzlRIX1V3s6B/L0TGK4LrWpky85oj74NtaaUw55MFMRuP1dmnmBKVVuVTABbj1XNbjUUykd0qTt0XgMZmciFHcAsCJjBe2ndT0kKCydC4jB3apfmcDfmBHDjH+lQGiEBC8m1xjWDWJ9Cgxehr8m5exfQEeijFOpsqB+Ny6hbqhFGJ7eJ3iGcHqq4Xunj/NqzVmy7LaU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b8244ffc-f98a-488b-7a53-08d7006a4ed8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jul 2019 10:28:08.3629 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pthubert@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4493
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.26, xch-rcd-016.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/mKWgLd5013cTBIOlgPg1op614z0>
Subject: [6lo] Advocating a generalisation of RFC8505 to non-6lo LANs
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 10:28:14 -0000

Hello Brian:

Yes, I'm willing to make the case. 

There are a number of reasons to enable a registration method on beyond 6lo networks:
- It is useful in wireless in general because it addresses non-transit multipoint links (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless/) and NBMA ML-subnets
- it is useful in particular in Wi-Fi because it reduces the need for broadcast quite dramatically.
- It is useful in a switched fabric to maintain an accurate state in the overlay mapping server (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6lo-unicast-lookup/)
- It is useful in a situation of host mobility in general, (see the discussion in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rift-rift-06#section-5.3.3 ) 
- It is useful for routers with hardware assist forwarding to avoid the punting dance and dropping of packets
- It provides SAVI properties with a workable Secure ND (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd/)
- It provides an abstract interface to the router to get routing services (already used with RIFT, RPL, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves/, and ND proxy, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router/)
- It solves a number of problems including Jen's, but also sleeping devices on non-6lo networks, remote DOS against router and ND cache, and more.

All in all I see it as a much needed modernization of ND to cope with the evolutions of the network (IOT, Wi-Fi and overlays) and with the new needs and behaviors (instant connectivity, fast roaming).

All the best,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lo <6lo-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: jeudi 4 juillet 2019 02:58
> To: 6lo@ietf.org; V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>rg>; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [6lo] ND cache entries creation on first-hop routers
> 
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>     >> I’m interested to have a parallel discussion on where RFC 8505 can not
>     >> apply. In the products and use cases I’m aware of, it could, since we
>     >> are actually faking it by snooping ND and DHCP to achieve similar but
>     >> less accurate results.
> 
>     > So if you are advocating a generalisation of RFC8505 to non-6lo LANs,
>     > that's certainly a discussion we could have, IMHO.
> 
> I think that it could be applied in situations of servers, such as data centers
> where there are multiple tenants. (Many VM infrastructures have shared
> front-end networks)
> 
> I think that temporary addressess are not a feature in some of those
> deployments that everyone wants, and thus having a registration system is a
> feature.
> 
> This does not solve the smartphone on new WIFI issue, which is a different
> situation completely.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [