RE: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 09 February 2017 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 15EB612946B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:55:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 3Q9n4PfEqxqn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:55:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79F46126D74 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:55:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v19KtpBU044064; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:55:51 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v19KterX043808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:55:41 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:55:39 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:55:39 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Subject: RE: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)
Thread-Topic: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)
Thread-Index: AdJ8F7CvYW0JrWzvRzOTQSlLsXA0KQA/bwYAACZxdWAA79nnKQAAmI2QAHUG9YAAC9NOUA==
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:55:39 +0000
Message-ID: <9db702dd473540a59b49b877724b5f1b@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <9910b4acd87044e89fad83bb5c795b77@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfJMW5SRDxm04rC67Xvf4YqaxihyCRUXfGW3TUq42Xk-A@mail.gmail.com> <5ebd374f4ec8454b8a3796cffe5e1919@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfN9x031TXBd8Hpiv5168=zXXN+U02gGqsxyXhpQ-SDWA@mail.gmail.com> <E291D7B9-7492-4043-BE4F-E45CB54985D7@google.com> <CAJE_bqePL1bKAZL53=oebn=2eiYKdxyULd5jS4uJk9jo1sFrcA@mail.gmail.com> <614ead862aa54a548ed4835a998a42e4@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqf2Vc9nocdh+Y-fDj_nLL4-b-W=ysb8raCFg2Qj6k6wBA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqf2Vc9nocdh+Y-fDj_nLL4-b-W=ysb8raCFg2Qj6k6wBA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6pHtrc46A90aX5CEXGVgupyeON8>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:55:54 -0000

Hi Jinmei-san,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com [mailto:jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com] On Behalf Of ????
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:27 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>om>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)
> 
> At Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:43:12 +0000,
> "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> > > BTW, if this proposal keeps the concept of "unsolicited redirect" and
> > > also allows the destination address of '::' to bypass the host's
> > > validity check of whether it's really the first hop router for the
> > > destination,
> >
> > No, that is not what we want to have happen. The document doesn't
> > say this currently, but we want to retain a revised version of the validity
> > check. The revised version of the check would say:
> >
> > OLD:
> >       - The IP source address of the Redirect is the same as the current
> >         first-hop router for the specified ICMP Destination Address.
> >
> > NEW:
> >       - The IP source address of the Redirect is the same as the current
> >         first-hop router for the specified ICMP Destination Address, or
> >         (when the ICMP Destination Address is '::') the same as the current
> >         first-hop router for the specified RIOs
> >
> > Would welcome better wording than this, but we definitely do want
> > to retain the validity check. Comments?
> 
> Okay, I now understand the intent.  In that case I think the
> validation logic (currently described in Section 3.1) will have to be
> more detailed.  It will also have to cover some corner cases such as
> where some of RIOs contain pass the above validation but some others
> don't.

I would rather have the validation check say that, if any of the RIOs
(among possibly multiple) fail the check then the entire Redirect
message also fails the check.

> Similarly, I guess it should specify which RIOs can be
> accepted by the receiving host in general (e.g., when the destination
> address is 2001:db8:a::1, should the host accept an RIO for
> 2001:db8:b::/48?).

To avoid this ambiguity, I would prefer to require that the destination
address MUST be set to "::" IFF any RIOs are included. That way,
legacy implementations that don't understand RIOs will reject the
Redirect because it doesn't include a valid destination address, while
new implementations will process the Redirect by ignoring the
destination address and parsing all included RIOs.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya