Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Eduard:

I published 01 with a beginning of a P2MP section 5.5. Please let me know if it is going in the direction that you expected.

For the drawing below, I guess we could do  a number of them for a number of cases, like an multihomed server and an IoT radio device. But there's not one fits it all.

Please let me know what you think is next and how we could improve the text on those 2 items.

All the best,

Pascal

From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 4:25 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; IPv6 WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

Hi Pascal,
You could say at the beginning of the document that only downstream multicast is the problem for wireless.
Upstream multicast is emulated by unicast anyway - typically not a problem.

I am a little worried about the additional complexity related to the new layer of abstraction (IP Link). IPv6 is already deadly complex. This step is in the opposite direction of simplification.
But it looks like needed.

Picture for possible IP subnet to IP link to L2 link relationships would help the reader. I am strongly missing it. If I understand you:

[cid:image002.png@01D98FFF.E2CEB3D0]

Could you mention that SGP (Subnet Gateway protocol) is optional and needed only for the case when the subnet consists of many IP Links?

Figure 2 is misleading (probably a mistake): The IP subinterface and IP subnet should have the same set of IP Links (the picture implies different, for example, A and B).
IMHO: you need to delete the IP link reference against the IP subinterface or IP subnet.
Moreover, the picture is double misleading because the IP subnet (and IP subinterface as a result) may have many IP links (the picture implies only one).
IMHO: you need to put a set {IP link X, IP link Y, ..} against all IP subnet/subinterface.

The document is clear on what should be done when a subnet consists of many IP links - SGP protocol is needed.
The document is not clear on what should be done when an IP link consists of many L2 links (it is possible to guess by reading how it was resolved in different L2 technologies, but guessing is not a good option here).

All of the above was "nits".
But there is a principal problem that pushes me to vote against WGLC for this draft:
The promised solution for P2MP is just missing in the document - not discussed.
IMHO: P2MP is principally needed. Hence, it should be clearly discussed.
I guess what you would propose, but I am not 100% sure.

Ed/
From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 9:52 AM
To: IPv6 WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

Dear WG:

We adopted that draft to publish it as informational; it is at the same time a state of the art, a problem statement, and an applicability statement.

The issues are clear and present, see also draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations. We face customer situations where clients are not properly served because ND snooping fails to locate them all with a painful regularity. This impacts all sorts of situations, from wireless to fabrics / EVPN.

Note that This is indeed very related to the SLAAC operation and IPv4 is mostly immune. Meaning that the IPv6 experience is of more broadcasts and less reliability.

In order to progress in solving the issues raised, it makes sense to publish soon and move on. The draft has been progressing as an individual submission for a long time and it is mostly complete, IMHO. So my intent is to ask for WGLC sooner than later. To get there, reviews would be highly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance : )

Pascal