Re: [v6ops] Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt)
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Wed, 20 February 2019 09:09 UTC
Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
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 0B5601276D0; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:09:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EdycGGRMQGxi; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A4D4124B0C; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:09:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id o6so26356918qtk.6; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:09:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xYKH4MKZJacDAX8sjuS2dgArqUbwGfaBlJPrSI4yrTM=; b=QgRZNJpHkupfaY6jCJeFxjFaCnGDYz0ocq9fJoegEXI9EB6DlI3xm1pzpqQNe8DKHY ft4qmMwlPr14WXE/mwbsuLpdTSlhxdA0LK10m1hw1bx+mKnMa3Fv3FdaOFKaZSy+raGd pUMuSfDnCtiZoQ4LIgPIAKXxfT9P7hd7Au47903emzFhttWCDY4hQYkwTh223SZkL0us YgOpBJ3470Y1EuBHBtEFABss65zC2VZRBP17llx2AxqyERt+cqAjyiZwdHTI3c7BUazz LmaewaRbvKnb926gkfx3cvIWJqKm69995DdC5JgH/AKyqO2eLP7Au4IaXyj5MuisrxZ7 ywNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xYKH4MKZJacDAX8sjuS2dgArqUbwGfaBlJPrSI4yrTM=; b=Z7wQyXOk+qdOPp5//JOUrRlx1OJ/ma2aae2akI1Ogv0fyvCam5c4dqMp5xJ6PtpQio MEoLxKxrNPaIxwRZGAG6pLKDHJoueTfAX6bPKiC1Y+96133/gMCE24n2FFI36gr3DzBh a/W0WIZpsqyk7trovorGLaanuW1/QT0coeoPYlMxjeHlOIBuZZgUzC4OZ0yHOZIdFMd2 /4hsywr17QCMd4rGSW+7dveTV5Va7zMmc/UArlCGBpX2qCexbORRXtDRQtcid2yaTKwQ pMCRbdNTApw9UDNsNSz/EoIeYyj8oIRI0Zdp5JmXQTl3haitCr5L3CGzrwXrfXM+cytz CkGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZqEwatr8SMiummy+rPin3rwRSlixfYergHZgLefgiZnLhx1ZVA 5olZ0QSPuR+cczc43gdXBQoOVyduT5mGBmthGafkvw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYTZ3iq9eJmlO4de4QfAAUNcJV1bpiKJeqC21THmipYIxv4cxibgYK5kxyHxaZSeRloTW5Y8QAyQuBrM1IVj4A=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3341:: with SMTP id u1mr25237516qta.58.1550653751425; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:09:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155053352190.25856.12031845488827430669.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <fe9eecc0-b41a-53c5-5e17-7f8d732cb7cf@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe9eecc0-b41a-53c5-5e17-7f8d732cb7cf@si6networks.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:08:59 +1100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BARkjRQ3k1wE7SQysf8+_AageKYd9BxC9-J89UFrB2mGwg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5MFdOmhlYn5ELYbPP3zDb1OrD1E>
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:09:14 -0000
Hi Fernando, On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:48 AM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote: > We have posted a revision of our I-D, which expands a lot on the problem > and possible solutions, based on the email discussion we had on this list. A few comments: - (sorry if I missed another thread on it - I'm catching up with emails slowly): any reason for setting Valid Lifetime to 0 as well? It looks to me that just deprecating the prefix would be enough..What would be a benefit of completely removing an address already deprecated? - "After normal processing of Router Advertisement messages, Router Advertisements that contain at least one PIO MUST be processed as follows" - I'd suggest you make it explicit that PIOs must of of the global scope. I did see CPEs including PIOs for fe80::/64 (and AFAIR such behavior is not explicitly prohibited); - the draft makes an assumption that "while network configuration information might be split into multiple RAs, PIOs will be spread among *at most* two RAs." - I'm not sure where this assumption is coming from - is there any requirements for routers saying it MUST/SHOULD do this? Adding any references to support such assumption would be very helpful. - as I've mentioned earlier, it would be nice not to break other scenarios while fixing DHCP-PD case. So what do you think about modifying the algorithm so the addresses are deprecated only if *all* routers the PIO has been received from stopped advertising it? Again, my point is that while proposed behavior *does* help in a single-homed residential case, it would be nice to keep in mind other cases and avoid breaking them; - the proposed changes say that PIOs MUST be processed as follows....and relies on hosts tracking prefix <> nexthop as per RFC8028...However RFC8028 (and RFC8504) uses 'SHOULD' ...so it seems to be inconsistency here..If a host does not implement RFC8029, all those MUST in the draft do not make much sense. > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:45:21 -0800 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Jan Zorz <jan@go6.si> > > > A new version of I-D, draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum > Revision: 01 > Title: Reaction of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to > Renumbering Events > Document date: 2019-02-18 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 22 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01 > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-01 > > Abstract: > In scenarios where network configuration information related to IPv6 > prefixes becomes invalid without any explicit signaling of that > condition (such as when a CPE crashes and reboots without knowledge > of the previously-employed prefixes), nodes on the local network will > continue using stale prefixes for an unacceptably long period of > time, thus resulting in connectivity problems. This document > analyzes these problem scenarios, and proposes workarounds to improve > network robustness. This document updates RFC4861 and RFC4862 to > allow for a more robust reaction to network configuration changes. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
- Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Version… Fernando Gont
- Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… Jan Zorz - Go6
- Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… Enno Rey
- Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… Jan Zorz - Go6
- RE: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… STARK, BARBARA H
- RE: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd: New Ver… Jan Zorz - Go6
- Re: [v6ops] Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd:… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd:… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd:… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] Revision of the SLAAC/renum I-D (Fwd:… Fernando Gont