Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-08.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 25 September 2017 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A00133085; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 F8Y6KjcmTK64; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C6D8134311; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 06:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169C62009E; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:45:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE05980CFA; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <235c34a0-415e-5580-7308-58cf19131f3d@gmail.com>
References: <150044138257.25233.12391471568614147773@ietfa.amsl.com> <f5e84812-c2fa-cc16-4105-20f7791110f4@gmail.com> <20170918060429.GC31832@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <11713.1506195333@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <235c34a0-415e-5580-7308-58cf19131f3d@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:40:20 -0400
Message-ID: <23496.1506346820@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/RIJZHJqyAqhUR0udk75amFbZbNs>
Subject: Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-08.txt
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:40:29 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I get a bit confused by the way your mail agent doesn't distinguish
    > new and old text, but in line...

Well, there isn't any old text in it, rather there are quotes from the document!

    brian> Toerless explained elsewhere why he thinks the duplication is
    brian> needed.

I read that after my email.
I simply can't agree.

    >> ====== section 11
    >> This document may be considered to be updating the IPv6 addressing
    >> architecture ([RFC4291]) and/or the Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
    >> addresses ([RFC4193]) depending on how strict specific statements in
    >>
    >> I don't like this statement.  Either it violates the spec, and updates it, or
    >> it does not.  I do not think that it violates.  This is not a multi-link
    >> subnet, this is a prefix that is not on-link.

    brian> As readers of the 6man list know, this has been a very contentious topic.
    brian> I think it's safer to duck it in the ACP draft: say what we do, but say
    brian> nothing about RFC4291 etc.

I agree.

    >> It is possible, that this scheme constitutes an update to RFC4191
    >> because the same 64 bit subnet prefix is used across many ACP
    >> devices.  The ACP Zone addressing Sub-Scheme is very similar to the
    >> common operational practices of assigning /128 loopback addresses to
    >> network devices from the same /48 or /64 subnet prefix.
    >>
    >> It does not. Brian? Do you concur?

    > Put it this way. The ACP doesn't assign ULAs using DHCPv6. It doesn't assign
    > them using SLAAC. It doesn't use conventionally sized /64 subnets. So in that
    > sense it is like RFC 6164 ("Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links").
    > But we don't need to apologise. As you say, we're simply assigning /128
    > addresses to (virtual) interfaces using our own scheme. And we're relying
    > on BCP 198 (RFC 7608) which says that routing prefixes can be any length
    > up to /128. If you want to cite anything, cite RFC 7608.

Toerless, do you want text to say this?

    draft> The goal for the 8 or 16-bit addresses available to an ACP device in
    draft> this scheme is to assign them as required to software components,
    draft> which in autonomic networking are called ASA (Autonomic Service

    mcr> We are not providing 8-bit or 16-bit IIDs.
    mcr> We are providing 256 or 65536 /128 addresses which are conveniently
    mcr> aggregated for routing purposes.

    draft> In practical terms, the ACP should be enabled to create from its /8
    draft> or /16 prefix one or more device internal virtual subnets and to
    draft> start software components connected to those virtual subnets.

    mcr> No, don't say this, and don't do this in practice.  Create /128 routes to LL
    mcr> address of the internal VM and configure the /128 as a loopback address
    mcr> inside the VM.

    brian> So yes, I concur with Michael.



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-