Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis
Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> Fri, 19 June 2015 07:59 UTC
Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A591A8700 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <6xFuMvp-HMHo>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BANNED, message contains text/plain,.exe
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.502 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HK_RANDOM_REPLYTO=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=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 6xFuMvp-HMHo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm34-vm2.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm34-vm2.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [72.30.239.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A38381A86EE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com.au; s=s2048; t=1434700764; bh=dju3In1k813e6euTmjbehR6IjYBy2BUKfBtU4FLX1mA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=ohH0rf2tzTD2coMo63qDW+lR0OODOeDpafYNWi6i647uw8UiOMWbAbATQu+7mbSpzhANMCunaqCR/1NNIx0XILsNNxTyLtIUouKt62F0ArIwRPGgtRdIHh8tL0LE/8VWShVBhrY1ccmIdZmjKLjygz8GQqJ3aXbQNBFcCz7wcx3nuGIV2R2SOfEjlyDxpmBvRG4rYF1uhNfp5fgLDFWpGCiZJFpnxH0FEzq8EPK4oRosn4SwEA1uf2HLfonos4BgdyJGYSPz4c/HzjjsQ+zWO2FUZA1oKNPR4UZRA6KxKnjfpatIWWP6rZZlL1yFInMsIBDh5Zx02R8Un4ctFhss3w==
Received: from [66.196.81.174] by nm34.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2015 07:59:24 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.195] by tm20.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2015 07:59:24 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun 2015 07:59:24 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 703723.74820.bm@omp1004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: B4OVQ14VM1mBH4n1QRsPP9zOh4hbNpfzMO_R9_h2LGwVU5DLqX5TNJ8IaIC_4aP QPT.ELb44tB5AOEsHjG5_8QiQjmVs1Bsrm7u85GCseahGl2PhouUuhpfT59qykKqQDQSNASe_ecl PNyIinIGepj5hxa9UJkL3_8HRRpXpwSTXLS55A307l8JyJ1pO09_40D7wH4DjYwzt6QAEA.xQxKJ KBVoYGiheTlrOEHcHmzxme7BMNH3SyABBcV8NFyGNeR_tqJj3.4D_fGQy_sOIZRjid1oEy9BUAne jm1E1zureUZ8CpJh4Ymp731gSJTUw9pJtcv6mp3TTL6Egh_H6azMB3w.Zs_CpTkXSITyrSEaN9Yz uxVK6ZXCUs9_KLIh8LzP2kZJilaOGrbqhq02BFiB_d5Ygh5dUrHtjZZSUlixtec6J28e3e44uNrh HM_ctZS8jHNZQzxV3HT_x3mFtUa51rlao6ZAZ.XULz.tsB2u6cuuIY_cvwLjxdLtSnjBQ9fXLZu5 PRsAQqzie2ouE6v3en4tvSGh6B5JsGSFJUTq6OaClLepFwNckeos-
Received: by 66.196.80.116; Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:59:24 +0000
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:59:23 +0000
From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-ID: <73503897.2035558.1434700763863.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxodZ_NBhH5HCVR29Ff_K_th=RBWHvbucQs6sqSpxoA1bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAedzxodZ_NBhH5HCVR29Ff_K_th=RBWHvbucQs6sqSpxoA1bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2035557_1567236512.1434700763846"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0YZt7r650lw-RE4JD9z-Wzsx0Jc>
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:59:28 -0000
Hi, I provided quite a bit of feedback on the draft Fernando wrote up about this, which doesn't seem to have been considered/included. For example, I don't think retaining a subset of DNSSL option values is the right thing to do because they're not providing information about alternative entities that provide or are expected to provide the equivalent service, unlike the RDNSS options. Re: Some thoughts/comments on draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues-01 | | | | | | | | | Re: Some thoughts/comments on draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues-01Hi, CC'ing Mark Andrews, because he is one of the DNS experts I'm aware of, so it would be good to get his input. I'm having a read though, here are some thoughts/comments I have on it. | | | | View on www.ietf.org | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | A further thought I've had is that if the DNS resolver addresses are on-link, then NUD status can also be an indication of DNS resolver liveness. I don't think the following should be followed. --Note: An RDNSS address or a DNSSL domain name MUST be used only as long as both the RA router Lifetime (advertised by a Router Advertisement message [RFC4861]) and the corresponding option Lifetime have not expired. The reason is that in the current network to which an IPv6 host is connected, the RDNSS may not be currently reachable, that the DNSSL domain name is not valid any more, or that these options do not provide service to the host's current address (e.g., due to network ingress filtering [RFC2827][RFC5358]).-- It is quite valid that RA lifetimes are less than the lifetimes of the options in them - a RA router lifetime of zero means that the router issuing them is not to be used as a default router, but that doesn't mean that the RA options the RA is carrying are now invalid too (which is I think the fundamental reason why options have their own lifetimes, so option information is decoupled from the RA router lifetime). Here's what RFC4861 says about Router Lifetimes: Router Lifetime 16-bit unsigned integer. The lifetime associated with the default router in units of seconds. The field can contain values up to 65535 and receivers should handle any value, while the sending rules in Section 6 limit the lifetime to 9000 seconds. A Lifetime of 0 indicates that the router is not a default router and SHOULD NOT appear on the default Narten, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]RFC 4861 Neighbor Discovery in IPv6 September 2007 router list. The Router Lifetime applies only to the router's usefulness as a default router; it does not apply to information contained in other message fields or options. Options that need time limits for their information include their own lifetime fields. Regards,Mark. From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com> To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, 19 June 2015, 12:05 Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis +1 to extending the lifetime, I suppose -1 to obsoleting 6106 """ Appendix B. Changes from RFC 6106 The lifetime's upper bound of 2 * MaxRtrAdvInterval was shown to lead to the expiry of these options on links with a relatively high rate of packet loss. This revision relaxes the upper bound and sets a higher default value to avoid this problem. """ Why not just have a 2-pager that updates 6106 with some discussion of lifetime changes? On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote: > This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on adopting: > > Title : IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration > Authors : J. Jeong, S. Park, L. Beloeil, S. Madanapalli > Filename : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis > Pages : 18 > Date : 2015-05-09 > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis/ > > as a working group item. Substantive comments and statements of support for adopting this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. This adoption call will end on June 22nd, 2015. > > This document is intended to resolve the issues with RFC6106 documented in draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues. > > Regards, > > Bob Hinden & Ole Trøan > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rf… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Tomoyuki Sahara
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Erik Kline
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mark ZZZ Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Bob Hinden
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Fernando Gont
- Conclusion: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6… Ole Troan
- Re: Conclusion: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeo… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mark ZZZ Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mark Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mark Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mark Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… David Farmer
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mark Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Tore Anderson
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… David Farmer
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mark Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… David Farmer
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… David Farmer
- Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdns… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong