IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPv6]Re: Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag>

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 June 2024 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D297C18DB84 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uuB836p6LBj5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5600EC1840FF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [99.209.81.118]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDE6C1F455 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:23:16 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.b="HJX1ztwU"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9122AA147D; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1718122963; bh=ctwWGlk4M476KieAPI15IUEBorzFmxvqGUEtyu0+V/8=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=HJX1ztwULA0/6TNnlK7dDURF5DGGLWMhfdf/RJMUe6tfbhT3l5EAtrKdy+HAL4fHl 2wkZ2Liqc9b6D/yQfNibU6AacKl7HppMlbcxz8ErEf8XNQkSYdfSqDiKQbp7dHhmwE YZyUjc1HBcetj87gXFrOpurSt0q7XoVMepJUs244pCjWgkYamI1Un/+pUYZzaoBxbh LVkzFVaw2DUayRFITVmpd0C7Jqj7bo7Uiz47as44wTKqP2R3VVCqaF9Npcq1qKbCae cN293ujZfPuUDsp9WyUS97ElroAY3c/+MN6wYG/Tdfo12V0c+vOANComzG+gGCO+hX FPl0kevasID/A==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4F8A0009 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAKD1Yr13KV_gpHbc37SyPzN0QECupai6NyJrBMC-+5BFZD_3fQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18236.1717011844@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <2AD87DE1-075E-45E7-A682-8042F04EF59A@employees.org> <89dbde8c-82c9-4a2e-9cff-8d4fd2d8fbe6@gmail.com> <9E7BEA1C-4597-4142-A3AB-57211C436197@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0iR+RZHvuquCGYfntiD+K7-PdkvGJzHLx1PLrFqJ=Z4Q@mail.gmail.com> <47BF97B8-2BEE-47CC-A965-C6BB112990AB@employees.org> <4bcfcd71-d295-433d-813f-1183c7da3cf3@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1CL_Jw4O-iETF6T1v8EL_Lj-fMi6EV=3MgPhN+M2tc8w@mail.gmail.com> <84f6e699-5587-4407-a566-b031c31e2cd5@gmail.com> <CAMGpriWqD99OzdOaJU7_nQTwvD=o1wsVxOQrbMqy5sH7sX7gwA@mail.gmail.com> <95dfd2e9-25da-4449-b740-724804a34735@gmail.com> <CAKr6gn12Vq9xJWGH+Na6xhDXXsW2XSDCnLegjXMRLN8KJ2CEZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr24RyW_oxhY3iz5nEdXd0EZENy9cZBo7tfxLqLLMHOX_g@mail.gmail.com> <e2e406e1-1231-4c28-8163-c0e220da7453@lear.ch> <b8f85b39-0167-4040-a5d4-3a97f8819b99@gmail.com> <E50531BE-5867-472A-91FE-739341545D62@employees.org> <CAFU7BAS5iRLhGBkbWnnpjz_3oJX+_mbjNUZhm8X=QRMJUUPPxg@mail.gmail.com> <C9B5D7FD-8E88-4CA6-86EF-A275 3848F138@employees.org> <CAN-Dau3tNbG-yuKb=t7_ftxBrGXTjXw+A0rhi3wuHZPvg0FPwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr13KV_gpHbc37SyPzN0QECupai6NyJrBMC-+5BFZD_3fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> message dated "Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:38:04 +0900."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:22:43 -0400
Message-ID: <3008563.1718122963@dyas>
Message-ID-Hash: ORWHRFIKIINB7SBA3SRJDV3ARNFLUF6B
X-Message-ID-Hash: ORWHRFIKIINB7SBA3SRJDV3ARNFLUF6B
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ipv6.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPv6]Re: Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag>
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1Ha2m6uXlzs1kE75BywBOYws6rw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ipv6-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ipv6-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ipv6-leave@ietf.org>

To me, it seems that too many semantics are going on the pflag.
I think it should just be: try DHCPv6-PD to get a prefix *BEFORE* configuring
(and defending) a v6 address via SLAAC (or DHCPv6 IA_NA if that flag is set).

There are lots of failure cases for the DHCPv6-PD: no space available, prefix
not suitable for your IID/SLAAC process, offered a ULA when you wanted a GUA, etc.
In each case, the node needs to go back to whatever it would do before.
That ranges from ND-proxy to NAT44 to whine at user.

As Lorenzo says, there are nodes that would just do DHCPv6-PD anyway.
They probably form an IPv6 address anyway.

BTW: The pflag is useful on the WAN links of PPPoE devices, I think, if it
     eliminates the need to number the PPP link.  At a distance
     (pre-pandemic) point in time I was was going to do a document that did
     something similiar (but, more complicated) in IP6CP.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status