Re: [homenet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 20 November 2015 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1CD1B31EB; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:03:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] 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 XS6uDORWDfk7; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8E021B31E7; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.10] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tAKF3Qfk015274 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:03:27 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.10]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Markus Stenberg" <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:03:26 -0600
Message-ID: <B85117F3-ADBA-466F-B546-F323B7DAA586@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <0006AA88-EBFD-4EE4-B8F0-212ABE730FBF@iki.fi>
References: <20151118033947.24577.54396.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <564C92EB.8020003@openwrt.org> <0006AA88-EBFD-4EE4-B8F0-212ABE730FBF@iki.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5180)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/a6NazQvWo4tk79q8GHGPzFzBcuY>
Cc: homenet-chairs@ietf.org, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>, draft-ietf-homenet-hncp@ietf.org, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:03:32 -0000

On 20 Nov 2015, at 1:30, Markus Stenberg wrote:

> On 18.11.2015, at 17.02, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>; wrote:
>>> -6.4, first paragraph: "Each HNCP node SHOULD announce an IPv6 
>>> address
>>> and - if it supports IPv4 - MUST announce an IPv4 address,"
>>> I don't suppose there's any way we can make IPv6 a MUST?
>> I guess we could unify both and make them both SHOULD or MUST. Right 
>> now
>> I can't really remember the argument for or against either but I will
>> discuss it with Markus.
>
> This current MUST + SHOULD is actually result of developments during 
> summer (not sure if it was this summer, but I suspect so). Note that 
> it does NOT say that you MUST assign IPv4 and SHOULD assign IPv6; it 
> talkes entirely about announcing the said assignment. The assignment 
> is also used for conflict resolution, but (at the time) the people who 
> discussed these noted that RFC7217 is unlikely to conflict, and 
> therefore announcing the assignments is nice to have, but not 
> mandatory (and you could also use e.g. DAD if you really wanted to as 
> this is simply local state on a link). In case of IPv4, where we 
> essentially pick out of /26, 1 in 64 chance of collision (1 in ~8 due 
> to birthday paradox) was not considered as good odds and therefore it 
> was made a MUST; there is no IPv4 DAD as fallback either.
>
> I am not fine with SHOULD for IPv4 as it will essentially break it; I 
> can live with MUST for IPv6 but consider it unneccessary. Let me know 
> how you feel about it (or if we should add the justification text to 
> the document).

Your answer makes perfect sense. My wishful thinking was just wishful.

Ben.

[...]