IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 27 September 2022 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 7840DC15DD52 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l7bSQd9eFefV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (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 10E11C15DD4D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id k10so17609369lfm.4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=k4y+kcFWULE0T8+Q89NlZKxjtnovFqvb0l4iJm+mXCQ=; b=IhZ2FqO5WfF9Qi4wHy1H8zNp6JDI7wPBXHxNMVZH7SwxpliXjMgm8pKpguNdm3lVOe pOlxM9QdTjIx3AfxAVUwNg/itnWweLSuUqV3XjZ/G06f9BSTpFqyNnl6NZO1PWuvxrpk 9tW3hRsaWfm4Rb9V9cGWkllGnJhZKepqC/aatygh8757jUWpZhpfLYldMi3pOUZG2Oe2 E8Sk8CYkkA8QredFKcoJrdfOQV76RJNicPNOIJtvHPMtHSmoacSmloX0n2+E6jpLpvs/ G2nqiV49pokuGtCESp1XfPMjVDK7ILzf2Bu8WkX7ntjVDTjEAyBiJE22UsRET3JLcIc2 xNFg==
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=k4y+kcFWULE0T8+Q89NlZKxjtnovFqvb0l4iJm+mXCQ=; b=rELQzkQKL4nyrACahg3GoQ13N6n/TXHxP2xbNdVri2KaPzG5KeRYjI6EdGTtSDNsUZ GaZEEHRhim0i8ZwxLIlZaMHMYT8SJyrZHIrsIZzqoeKBt3Bgi6g+Z2+ZWkelJeo2eGhH QmFM78cd+znAo68tfEmMWhjSN22VjcQtV0seaw22yzrIVi8UNz1uHUzOX0RmmxQUimr9 IdXSiQq6doP58JVRsysUTbZAQMoWrOuZ2hFzH0Y7QyKuWKV+aqnqYM0y+cyMIyNCbxlU IA0WfECEOjBe7OK3TsUV54qYA5DrzU7by706LapBIGVDAKxCf6ffuOYJWH6G9gYCnjLm wZtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf18nuk0BmeDodxja1mr5xiMt6TLjtk5enNMSbTGbG0RrmKBFYxQ 6JrRrxuUSurqyIzSKceoaaJnWhH5nsgArLzGc/E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4r2SGWsXJEjkBl/lesT7QAssNJxokLu8N3jucQXK2zGTC2t5NgYRjXjcBo41dS8v+EbeGf4WLypFzyIFvY2oM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3187:b0:49e:6607:3a75 with SMTP id i7-20020a056512318700b0049e66073a75mr11324896lfe.28.1664314338763; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANMZLAZc-TbxaiQ0mbDjTOTf8Pvag1aH51ayXVorG3eTDNGt0w@mail.gmail.com> <AE339145-6752-4A84-B80B-B576BFCBFEFD@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <AE339145-6752-4A84-B80B-B576BFCBFEFD@employees.org>
From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:32:05 +1300
Message-ID: <CANMZLAbUDV8pU6ge9fXnLMBF-TgP0N4az64z7N6_hM3siJbrBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f4e7fe05e9af60ae"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9pC31vCxCYOCRM626EA8Otk4JK8>
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 21:32:21 -0000

End of section 2.1

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)


On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, 09:57 Ole Troan, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

>
> RFC8028
>
>
> Isn’t that a host behavior document?
> Could not find where that changes router behavior.
>
> O.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>     Brian Carpenter
>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, 09:00 Ole Troan, <otroan@employees.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?
>>
>> O.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email