Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 09 July 2010 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA7C3A6995 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id upMvwm+5JV7X for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424B83A6A66 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so398415eyb.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.33.73 with SMTP id g9mr1595473ebd.46.1278691967803; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.168] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x54sm8711124eeh.17.2010.07.09.09.12.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <201007091615.39159.hrogge@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:12:45 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E805012B-0A6B-448F-98CC-78585FA29C4B@inf-net.nl>
References: <4C2A6BB7.1000900@piuha.net> <4C2CFADD.3040909@piuha.net> <201007091615.39159.hrogge@googlemail.com>
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] RFC 5889 (Was: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:12:51 -0000

Op 9 jul 2010, om 16:15 heeft Henning Rogge het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> And in Section 6.1:
>> 
>> OLD:
>>  o  There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses are
>>     unique across multiple links, hence they cannot be used to
>>     reliably identify routers (it is often desirable to identify a
>>     router with an IP address).
>> NEW:
>>  o  There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses are
>>     unique across multiple links, hence they cannot be used to
>>     reliably identify routers, should this be necessary by the routing
>>     protocol for which IP address autoconfiguration is being provided.
> 
> I think this is still too strong.
> "There is no mechanism to ensure..." does sound as there never will be one. If 
> we cannot find a mechanism/protocol to do this, we cannot find one that 
> creates routing unique adresses (because the later would do the former too).
> 
> I think it should start with something like this:
> "The default mechanisms of IPv6 cannot ensure that..."
> (instead of "There is no mechanism to ensure that...")

Although I think the document should not kept waiting, I don't agree on this.
There is no mechanism to detect duplicate globals on different links.
The ND DAD mechanism does not work in a MANET for LL, and _also_ not for globals !!
A mechanism that ensures unique Interface-IDs ensures unique LLs.

We all agreed on that we shall not work on a new protocol for autoconfiguring LLs.
It is globals and MANET-locals (ULAs) that we are looking for.
That is in the document, in old and new text.

I would use unique LLs as router-IDs. I don't get what is wrong with this, as long as LLs are unique.
But LLs MUST NOT be used for multi-hop forwarded traffic.

Teco.