Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 09 November 2017 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D74C126DCA; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:34:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.357
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lu8p35qpA8jP; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C7CE1243F6; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A59B6801CA; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 18:34:43 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Erik Kline <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>,
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 05:05:23 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:34:54 -0000

On 11/09/2017 12:02 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
> I don't think we should be recommending unique RAs per device where
> the devices are all on a shared link.


And if we were to do it, we should be recommending this in a 6man
document, not v6ops.

> My understanding was that in the original motivating wifi deployment
> every node is effectively isolated in its own (pseudo)VLAN, and
> node-to-node traffic must be routed through the infrastructure (to the
> extent such a thing can actually be enforced in a medium like wifi).

Describing the virtues of one prefix per node, or how isolating nodes
(no "on link prefix") or the like are all fine for an informational
document, or even as a BCP (if that's how the wg feels).

Specifying hacks to SLAAC which require modification to the SLAAC router
code (you certainly need to hack e.g. radvd quite a lot to implement
this) or add additional requirements to SLAAC (like the requirement of a
data structure that contains mappings of Prefix_leased -> MAC_address)
is std track work that should be done in 6man, and with a document
flagged as "std track", not bcp.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492