Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 05 April 2024 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 919D9C14F705 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 PfqiUdX6jyrd for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B4AFC14F70D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4V9prV3SbWz9vZd5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 06:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YCqMsBNe7tsp for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 01:44:58 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f71.google.com (mail-ej1-f71.google.com [209.85.218.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4V9prV04ndz9vZd2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 01:44:57 -0500 (CDT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4V9prV04ndz9vZd2
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4V9prV04ndz9vZd2
Received: by mail-ej1-f71.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a474ac232e9so108638766b.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; t=1712299496; x=1712904296; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LFlpbtkB7aTogrFH0TeVO96PgMAL0QQNC2KPkJ8zu7c=; b=Pol6qqQa+22mepudXICDIchVSXd8ULyrhri4WcZ8ts7YwXCUm8wQM71UubjcsXCMyP QDeZPXkarPi21QQzQ0SJQ9vZSHXMhz/3yRbg/DQsOG3M++U16lYJwq8rO6LFaR0lOwco 4MR7+nzwAHVR3TH4yeK7iA/F7jqZ5sN0XYKk1EHDcQzLwoZwdG5qyyWG4n9dEqSDlgZT UHS+XLumS2OSIC+owfGWVfdASrc3MCE3uNIB8XFr5McvLAtSG7SvTblzrDy70YkUmGa3 NNfFm7S4/5Drdd5lfWI6WsTjVWLza2rdRdl2KQfQ7s2glu4Ila2D7GMGCyYEUJIFeGij s7fA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712299496; x=1712904296; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=LFlpbtkB7aTogrFH0TeVO96PgMAL0QQNC2KPkJ8zu7c=; b=JwZRI3/J49Ye6i5dBFoTlLevTKgTgnL3OmB+raNb4Sr/DuIZvd3PBkN8Wii8axYa9F XAQn3fCkHL8SBkiC/xhUf3RoPrXafucqKr1zlcuLmK4ErevAQBCz73Kw/p3D82z2CMsn SCkU970D77YqNkrTWwBe/J2Nhm31BHe54sQPZxZZTIzj99G/emYoFmdQsiV9kOlBsKWH E8wlPYVnj87OI2KPlm7aJxXC2BzJEnevfKOgBUdylvG09xlzmahhzm8VuNs3j6pkRN9o W60kq/fjwuiw27as0In6pWH0ZdaC8z7ToHwrd4hHG/QjOM0w4RQSmO0brzwngohIOXVi pk9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwW+WlMPFfFBNOb4oN8L9AlCZ2xiYJO8jUzE4f1KA5zBMK4zlIc J6qRxxDmBOReEslJZ60Czfit1D67hJLxP0MZhagJpIyYPVBjnpa+fckADFB97VP0DaAu7dQkQ68 x+k7viPeiLurDQWvBY44GqisrOgXCu19Esa+GzDREvBfXvt62wE+dZ8hGDKaau1IG5I166KbSo2 5PuutHmOvAro8i0FBzqpwi35L6iisVirQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:8acd:0:b0:56b:9029:dd48 with SMTP id k13-20020a508acd000000b0056b9029dd48mr339703edk.5.1712299496406; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 23:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEW3qqUu8vQ9AicgdIv6G/B8/p3WIdTMJXOVMqT6C7tGK9PuqKKcEdjiZl3W4+AVbfUmxCb7b2655p67wnkZpI=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:8acd:0:b0:56b:9029:dd48 with SMTP id k13-20020a508acd000000b0056b9029dd48mr339691edk.5.1712299495900; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 23:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <171225751716.18509.12521562864612372012@ietfa.amsl.com> <a4063219-1cd5-4e06-bf42-b0ffebd2b419@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a4063219-1cd5-4e06-bf42-b0ffebd2b419@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 01:44:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau3VrqfRR+4Eee7TOS1L2RAWbfWv87_QJH_u5gzVU1Av7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000033e835061553cbe1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3MnHsYQ0VvaRRPDdQ-tNaL-dk1g>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 06:45:03 -0000

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:52 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> All good changes, thanks.
>

+1


> About this in section 3:
>
> "AUTHORS' NOTE: The authors have had feedback suggesting this requirement
> should be a MUST, which would mean that "known-local" ULAs would take
> precedence on compliant implementations over all IPv6 GUAs and all IPv4
> addresses, but other general ULAs would not."
>
> I think the answer is clear, in section 8:
>
> "Receiving a DNS response for a ULA destination that is not attached to
> the local network... will typically fail..."
>
> That justifies the MUST in my opinion. But I agree we need to hear from
> kernel implementers.
>

Ideally, I'd like to see all IPv6 implementations automatically insert
"known-local" ULAs into their policy table. From that point of view, I
support MUST.

However, should constrained devices be an exception? If so, are there any
other exceptions? If there are exceptions, SHOULD might make more sense
than MUST.

Also, SHOULD allows for a two-phase implementation approach. Phase one is a
mostly trivial change to the default policy table that can be implemented
quickly and easily. Phase two is a fairly complicated addition of a new
feature for inserting "known-local" ULAs into the policy table that
probably needs quite a bit of testing before going into production.

In the long run, MUST is the right answer. However, SHOULD could have some
short-term advantages.

In either case, since I'm not aware of any implementations of the current
MAY, I'd like to see some proof-of-concept running code to make sure what
we think we are saying is actually doable.

Thanks.

Nit: in the .txt version, there is a glitch in the rendering of Rule 5
> at the beginning of section 8.1 - the newlines have been lost.
>

There are a number of rendering glitches that I mentioned previously.


> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 05-Apr-24 08:05, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt is now available.
> It is a
> > work item of the IPv6 Maintenance (6MAN) WG of the IETF.
> >
> >     Title:   Preference for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4 addresses in RFC6724
> >     Authors: Nick Buraglio
> >              Tim Chown
> >              Jeremy Duncan
> >     Name:    draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt
> >     Pages:   15
> >     Dates:   2024-04-04
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> >     When RFC 6724 was published it defined an address selection algorithm
> >     along with a default policy table, and noted a number of examples
> >     where that policy table might benefit from adjustment for specific
> >     scenarios.  It also noted that it is important for implementations to
> >     provide a way to change the default policies as more experience is
> >     gained.  This update draws on several years of operational experience
> >     to refine RFC 6724 further, with particular emphasis on preference
> >     for the use of ULA addresses over IPv4 addresses and the addition of
> >     mandatory support for Rule 5.5.  The update also demotes the
> >     preference for 6to4 addresses.  The changes to default behavior
> >     improve supportability of common use cases, including automatic /
> >     unmanaged scenarios.  It is recognized that some less common
> >     deployment scenarios may require explicit configuration or custom
> >     changes to achieve desired operational parameters.
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update/
> >
> > There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > I-D-Announce mailing list
> > I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================