Re: [dhcwg] Prefix-length of an assigned address, in a DHCPv6 message (was: draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-02.txt)

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 05 September 2014 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED021A06ED for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 QYT7x4IhgGsX for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22c.google.com (mail-qa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 121D11A06EF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id j7so10904387qaq.17 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/SRVCGumCzXfkilarJG7Gmqq3dZd9aGscvp0774G1/w=; b=YnN0zXJ430AlaLXOcec253ALOx5FPq5Bi46tNCQoqK0Ro9moi+PYNzxqU6Ouu3fNx9 OzhUhMgaQiwcK7inuuS+2tRb+MEJ27oB+pNC1brOZJjnns+y99aoYZUxWEJiR75jNaCW lrZmqhRPJFiw1JxTVyziSDMtVhJoyaTYzDs385PuPgbp8JOQ0lQudlsuL+7E3CNAxX7x m6jEvMyfuD/YmJxchtqM+gCsvA+YVmrH9UdkhBHkpQRGcSFRUlTriG8FVppmRZSBTh0a 0bhBG5/8eOznW77mGfOdklusXV1l2c7axbHQuhwpx/W8sNB7ajUQ8I6HdGXGTBnMslFc 1ILg==
X-Received: by 10.229.211.132 with SMTP id go4mr19239566qcb.0.1409927052826; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.86.247.182] (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b33sm892715qgb.9.2014.09.05.07.24.11 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5409C1B8.3000101@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:24:18 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EC3A32FA-CE3F-41DC-A7CF-109F87980DE9@gmail.com>
References: <20140519150302.3625.29866.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B03125B@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <53E3872A.30204@gmail.com> <53E38954.1030206@gmail.com> <AD6668B4-834A-4777-B667-006BA06A2C4F@gmail.com> <53E39157.8060708@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcr5ytrgrUWwPLvZ=vHNPe=C4OZcah0529suOLOgM6odA@mail.gmail.com> <53E39635.60608@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcv6PavTP_-EM-FMwD1hVrsqnfmWaCceZQshsxXNVr=4w@mail.gmail.com> <5409C1B8.3000101@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Pn8acWH0Zkb6kY4KMKT5qsQbt6k
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Prefix-length of an assigned address, in a DHCPv6 message (was: draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-02.txt)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:24:20 -0000

On Sep 5, 2014, at 6:59 AM 9/5/14, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 07/08/2014 18:24, 神明達哉 a écrit :
>> At Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:07:33 +0200,
>> Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> That aside, I wonder why programmers have set that 64 in the kernel data
>>> absent a prefix length field in DHCP/RA, if not because of the fact that
>>> specifications are lacking.  Were it for DHCPv6 to have a prefix length
>>> field for assigned address A, then programmer would be clearer of what
>>> to put on that field, I think.
>> 
>> I guess you're basically re-raising a long standing discussion of
>> whether to provide an on-link prefix via DHCPv6.
>> 
>> My understanding is that we have never reached a consensus on this at
>> IETF (consider, for example, how
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00
>> was discussed and we still don't have any published outcome), so a
>> simple rehash of it won't bring us anywhere.  At the very least it's
>> safer to discuss it outside the scope of rfc3315bis (because otherwise
>> we'll never be able to publish the bis).
> 
> Jinmei, thanks for the pointer.
> 
> But I wonder whether there is any draft that talks about how DHCPv6 sends a prefix-length of the assigned IPv6 address, to the Client?  (not Prefix Delegation, but the equivalent of the Prefix Length field of a PIO of a Router Advertisement)?

According to current published IPv6 standards, there is no prefix length associated with an IPv6 address.  An IPv6 address assigned to an interface in a host is a 128-bit value.  There is no implication that any leftmost bits of an IPv6 address assigned to an interface correspond to any prefixes assigned to a link.

An IPv6 host is made aware of prefix(es) on a link, which it then uses for forwarding decisions, through ND PIOs.

DHCPv4 includes a subnet mask with the assigned address as a way for a host to infer a prefix assigned to the associated link.

Can you describe how the prefix length associated with an assigned address is used in the kernel code from which you extracted the snippet below?

> 
> Alex
> 
>>        } else {
>>            /* Current practice is that all subnets are /64's, but
>>             * some suspect this may not be permanent.
>>             */
>>            client_envadd(client, prefix, "ip6_prefixlen",
>>                      "%d", 64);
>                              ^ make this variable.
> 
>> 
>> --
>> JINMEI, Tatuya
>> 
>> 
> 
>