IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]

Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> Tue, 27 September 2022 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@qacafe.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 1A315C15AE3D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qacafe.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MoNmBSbPqpqu for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-x35.google.com (mail-oa1-x35.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16FA9C14F727 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-x35.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-13189cd5789so3001980fac.11 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qacafe.com; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=FZW1k+szA8XKoybK0plrJhNSPnRvQZYfaJO4idxZ9pk=; b=Vtof4jULzF74QamQFcxeUplPJgDkFkwqkTWiEIz2xQfEYnoc6IucRyYjHAxcIRfIJP 3+VoW8O+7H6cvV9Pm90w4Pvp7a+fEhtFXjWT5XxbTp+c7k31/c7ofIfBsbN6jA/zgEIV KYTVNWbEfhyPJ9Xs5tgXFfsQx59HmrAfhyCJo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=FZW1k+szA8XKoybK0plrJhNSPnRvQZYfaJO4idxZ9pk=; b=VXySHQQvk96KBMrLpB/yYqzi/G0OrziW+gdYCZjtH6Mz2fsY6e+EKMilaZ5sTqLhAW I+uVMrH6SbeGEFLcgBn2at2b1lbTqwCiqWi5xwGDJqlVPPqna+vqpaZ5Jeb0pK7PKoY/ 22tniBrrQeXbBcw52SXokOz2yLJpykSo9zYJFi6RxZGAJY/yDn5dSXZ8OGD3I0+WYkhU 6e5V077poi989Xh/u09WYvN1hnT8UjdIbxh5da7OJMuJgZdmZ31pIF0AmW6BUsardRdv 1wFniKAz1nQEoc+3V7pwEjoVFV3Fy38MgnL7sGybfoiVk9pB9TnwwM5lPjKmlFgAqwQW y0rw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1KLam25Lj1FgSkYLFHL/fxiYig2HobDzD/2laDpzLnwkzhU2K3 FG7SEOz8II0jSX8isFvEZUSwEtwC7l97IMF3RLUdNQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7NN81NtluCQhvhbQJEyk5XsrXECSya7B9vRNN7iiz+s6crCHM+UFjiANtpG/tPASqdIiIa1/O6VBcaKJ3A6mE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:b613:b0:131:91af:db94 with SMTP id cm19-20020a056870b61300b0013191afdb94mr1729227oab.188.1664309780384; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a55ec35e-1e98-5447-09aa-cf03d98d6e44@gmail.com> <C7A2356F-620F-4DE9-A848-5D6BF71A7DDC@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <C7A2356F-620F-4DE9-A848-5D6BF71A7DDC@employees.org>
From: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:16:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJgLMKv1WMHXVgEUvdygSRx9x6Q7x_A9eG4+-OEQE8v=Ph2r8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
To: Ole Troan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000419d3f05e9ae513e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9KdNW6aL9SHbOkFeAgvi1G-zsp8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 27 Sep 2022 20:16:25 -0000

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:09 PM Ole Troan <otroan=
40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On 27 Sep 2022, at 21:48, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 28-Sep-22 08:40, Ole Troan wrote:
> >>> (It is the presence of a ULA /48 prefix in local routing that we care
> about. The PIO for a /64 within that /48 is the trigger that it needs high
> precedence.)
> >> Extending and overloading existing protocol fields is problematic. The
> proponents of this need at least to consider the consequences for existing
> implementations and future extensibility of the protocol. As well as the
> deployability of this, compared to existing standardized solutions.
> >
> > There isn't a standardized solution, since the mechanism for updating
> the RFC6724 table is not standardized. A=L=0 is already standardized to
> mean "I can route this prefix" and the proposal builds on that exact
> semantic.
>
> Can you point to text stating that a PIO with A=L=0 in an RA from a router
> is a promise by that router to forward traffic for those prefixes? Or that
> a PIO has that semantic in any context.
>
> Rfc7078?
>
RFC 5942 has text mostly for host implementations on the various flags.  I
quickly scanned it again, and didn't see any text for routers in this
context.

~Tim

>
> O.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email