Re: 64share v2

otroan@employees.org Tue, 10 November 2020 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 A80A43A0EA2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:13:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=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 l-v402gFl6-Z for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EC413A0E9E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:893a:3cee:c2a8:d287]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3F144E11B49; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F397A43AED80; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:13:30 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: 64share v2
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0G8PjzE+pULte_AaOi=RHMLyto-YUQerGjQ=iOYnz+iA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:13:30 +0100
Cc: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Erik Kline <ek@loon.com>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0986B112-2159-4045-87F9-876B58F1D896@employees.org>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0G8PjzE+pULte_AaOi=RHMLyto-YUQerGjQ=iOYnz+iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1soH5x2HCSqroDmk2ubPm4fZKkc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:13:38 -0000

> This looks pretty similar to the PIO-X bit which +Erik Kline and +Mikael Abrahamsson wrote up in 2017:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit
> 
> I can't remember what happened to that. IIRC one of the primary difficulties was that the scheme needs a strong guarantee from the link layer that the RA is received by only one host. The minutes from IETF 98 suggest that there was also a concern that it duplicates existing functionality in DHCPv6 PD. Also there was a question about the router being able to authenticate the client.
> 
> Maybe time to revive this?

RA in general is a one to many protocol. Providing configuration information tothe attached link.
Which is not the intended case here.

I suppose you could restrict this option to point to point link or unicast RA only.
And make a new option. You will end up re-inventing PD though.

The biggest concern is that delegated prefix is expected to have a lifetime equivalent to the L2 link state.
We don't know how to build networks with those properties...

Cheers,
Ole