Re: Metadata over IPv6

Brian Haley <haleyb.dev@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <haleyb.dev@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 52F16120876 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 zbAXqR6kSxYy for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (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 A6C3E120125 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id k6so7161997qki.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sGdYLjpCVKq+sYApkbtS2Vs1i5ErWWun2OEIUo90yf4=; b=CW0DGMh4bdc5s9Mxrl9ZE81xe+C8pq0gzS6AE64jDZHIxmRvUMjX+cfbJ8ve8M15Hk n90t/aROgEwln7neBOAus22LabCZVjhoaKvjXWpzEx7KELfyuJTXwPKRoN+6JdGmeJBw Q6O+4MUK3Y5Y8wtSecv/pUcV0k5EtXEg2X5tQG0sdRUoKHqCyFV2GYwN+2P9w7ecsBjj LQK+V/Lp91Fi0WV6wUrC8Lyj2yFbGRqQRhw3VcTvenK18lY7dLm3HQsWON/waXf4MAai aiLFo367Ohc+QWyoE1dVra83Xp7LUTN6e/kEYQjipUH1ewfu/ds7BDtZT5T3N+0Zf/R3 5rSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sGdYLjpCVKq+sYApkbtS2Vs1i5ErWWun2OEIUo90yf4=; b=CYSWZIYQws7unJ4wwuR5PsccbCVdbvBoVNaQfPLaqCKa+eoTywnSjU3CzasNlsQMfY 90C3GUNZeg3DNRm+MFsKxRqY2267liUr5CXqfclFrk2tGcz/tIK5u1bEY9236jxEOZ1l n5saOP1kG1br+VMGuQAb3YhGps0hDcFAtl8hVSiT9TJmKmJ6SeTOyXgKdAhmVHJbMR0H qWZY+aMUBAvY0HN/yk/HWCZTz/4atlpDtcDUKwe6ojz+WSOFELSVsIEVmBJeULzHO7No X2MNg9WrYDrunnGAiFfR//KlaBW3R9iBHsePtNL/nmusoiYgZzhw5de4RHHNCnPWo8nO py5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVB/T9E4Fo7UI6FL1lNmi1AJHAUhe9pVOfN1jVeRfbIiBtkcavy 00RiOtwvM/IxhrknPjSg6EaDBxWJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzmqKMuqsRMUIpUM659Ey4GGbvcFU8oWbQ7Dzs2Ng45J0+PZFdF4fMe3NKozQoq4H9g2aYwdA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1379:: with SMTP id d25mr7556298qkl.164.1576616732973; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:700:c12d:f5f0:b1d1:5ddd:d4b8? ([2601:18f:700:c12d:f5f0:b1d1:5ddd:d4b8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k62sm7459778qkc.95.2019.12.17.13.05.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Metadata over IPv6
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <eee1ebe3-dd1a-1a5b-21a8-739857995abf@gmail.com> <32CDF4DD-6AB2-453B-9C62-2DE854BEF764@gmail.com>
From: Brian Haley <haleyb.dev@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6202a23d-0676-acd1-5308-491f6323839d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:05:30 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <32CDF4DD-6AB2-453B-9C62-2DE854BEF764@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7Na4ytq5GEp8ERI2cndEgr75q8c>
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, 17 Dec 2019 21:05:37 -0000

On 12/17/19 3:36 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> Thanks for the question.
> 
> What comes quickly to mind is RFC 1546, which describes a local "Host Anycasting Service". Related, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.6 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.7, which respectively talk about local anycast and scoped multicast (one of the scopes being "local").
> 
> The bit pattern of a link-local address might be useful. That said, I would want this to not be "one-of", known by a few that happen to use a proprietary service (AWS), but consistent with the IPv6 addressing architecture and openly documented. From that perspective, I should think I might want a short RFC (I can help with drafting, if you like) that identifies the bit pattern and talks about it a bit.
> 
> When documented in that way, one could imagine IANA picking it up. They do that.

Hi Fred,

So it seems you and Mark are of the same mindset that I should request a 
new anycast allocation for this, which I'm fine with because it becomes 
official, even if it does take more time.  It should be a very short draft.

And just for my own sanity, this anycast address would apply to an 
address of any scope, correct?  For example, given 7c is the next one 
available:

fe80::7c
2001:db8::7c

I just want to make sure I cover the case where there isn't any 
configured IPv6 address besides the link-local.

Thanks,

-Brian


>> On Dec 17, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Brian Haley <haleyb.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi ipv6-list,
>>
>> I was an IPv6 contributor many moons ago, and remembered this list when looking into something on a new project, was hoping to get some IPv6 advice (below).
>>
>> The current project I'm working on, Openstack Neutron, is an SDN networking project focused on delivering networking-as-a-service (NaaS) in virtual compute environments.
>>
>> One thing that happens when a virtual machine boots is it typically asks for metadata, thing like ssh keys, and other configuration information required to make it functional.  It does this via requests to the URL http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/... ([0] has more complete info).  This link-local IPv4 address was defined by AWS and is widely used across all types of clouds.
>>
>> This works fine for dual-stack hosts, but more and more we're seeing IPv6-only networking scenarios that we don't support metadata with, so our community is looking to define an IPv6 address to use for this service.  My question to the list is - do you see a problem with us just defining an IPv6 link-local address for this same service?  Or do you think we need to propose a spec for it, in order to get IANA to reserve it?  We're trying to use a similar address, fe80::a9fe:a9fe (169.254.169.254 in hex - see [1] for more details), so it essentially looks the same.  We did think about using DNS to discover it, but for now just using a hard-coded link-local seems like a quicker way forward.
>>
>> Thanks for any comments or advice!
>>
>> -Brian Haley
>>
>> [0] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/instancedata-data-retrieval.html
>> [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/315604/
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>