Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 09 November 2017 03:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407B5129B41 for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 19:53:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eGsxD2AqNtsD for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 19:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56942128B27 for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 19:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e64so3350707pfk.9 for <>; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 19:53:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6hFhrE7olvweU9EnHws/foLHbNIV+ENl3TuOYj7Nkx4=; b=XaUvfL6mre4NldNFTeQNWhI5CLbq8BpvXLmmpeki+wxH+sH7xP1npINyQN9PrzK/Gh KyN05iQd39Iov+gbpNJJA5CFdraarV6Yx5EjCCMrO49zVPGDXbgH0R1UeKNFVEmYXau4 4BNTMPWJWfMvXeY6+NeTFk0HF6EoMbEDl0UuEzxwwwxX2V34T+KDb4DYHTk4iV4zV11T cblnf+9bwq8/NXOC/sCejlxujAzhAv8Owo/OdAWPGCx4PaP7TA//RePOV0NeOXZT3Ax1 pqkSTbKK95g/cKuRZrpu3rfSWcjXWFY4W4skgrwEaF/PCFwsOUcvI0oiVI0xQ8U128wZ HpVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6hFhrE7olvweU9EnHws/foLHbNIV+ENl3TuOYj7Nkx4=; b=Ps007zSkvxhWAtT1tDwLxpdTa2x2ObxtYCbVlzzScIuBzRIgyYy/+56G5EjlTFVIDB 7fA9h1uTqJhMdr/7aztvLoztY4VB13GITQAYLso4ktTvp8OY9rvNBoTajW2xuvMAA6/q O8pirHV/WDkYg7yHOym+uHQwpOv3iix65hiiIEGgUTNmJpbIstRuRgtSgHGsuIT5bF63 LEoMS38RnPx/5v2r+y2DanUrFgv9mAPT12+ntexIZWfzpULqntV+88ljl5Nmm9uQHM09 THuPSjLfXT1yFhZ9wXdOppnflK7uNpzNK4soK3c5UGvxBvBJrPUSkwdWvRBg9UwdXxQ9 YwdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4e3GMfR69cfZ4QClj7O6eKlZ1Sr7GWDNfGbHAb78szW6JlRX8C RkhI5bcBhljOMUa0tDFzDERlOg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RVZ2M/TfeMlLOaREbTj0FAUuJIVk9/B87G9fsKszuoN+oc43oFyiZH8NNHET4HQ7gCcWDgvQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n3mr2506917pld.227.1510199600589; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 19:53:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id 66sm8512066pgh.31.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Nov 2017 19:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:53:23 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 03:53:23 -0000

On 09/11/2017 16:02, Erik Kline wrote:
> I don't think we should be recommending unique RAs per device where
> the devices are all on a shared link.

Why not? Where's the harm? As pointed out at
it's permissible under RFC 4861. This is not an innovation.
> My understanding was that in the original motivating wifi deployment
> every node is effectively isolated in its own (pseudo)VLAN, and
> node-to-node traffic must be routed through the infrastructure (to the
> extent such a thing can actually be enforced in a medium like wifi).

It can also be enforced on a switched LAN if the switch does the requisite
peeking. We may not be happy at such layer violations, but it seems
to me that the days of true broadcast LANs are numbered and a lot of
these things will need to be rethought in the coming years.

Just a reminder, this draft was approved by the IESG a while ago
and is in state "RFC Ed Queue : AUTH48 for 23 days". This unique
unicast has been in there for a long time, although the phrasing
was clarified in the last couple of months, which is what WG
and IETF Last Calls are for.