IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 15 July 2017 23:59 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 474BE129AE7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 7uOWwKGbtxRO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (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 5465612778D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id q85so60921316pfq.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZIhPOzRz2E5I96Vm+G0k9Dc3PzzDgP52FPQYM7Yr8ts=; b=LTZk6adWhlSoe3jcd6h8VtanOGDh5pxGM0Wm/xmL/Nl1sXyepnaEnj4dp8T5FKANeQ xNGRuyd81IfXbfCHtLmuwSL02B1l3Ix0Nv9a4Ftrgarsy6bZbiamjQA2sfLrNiEtGomn o0VQoykhyqkfzj/mfoLZsYtR7SR05UnFT1nc2qygMvFpF04kZ5bPVFRdeBBCbKrL9U4i 3Bo4B/EHAvQJ/6nuRmTAcSc1+e3ijuTIB8bMsZBEro1B6SBmU83d/OSow5rFMb76+3E/ 112PxfYHRqSMsnZpOv9rmfLax161ej5/swYGJ2VYBO2V7RMKn1v6jHS3bP+Vkue6rdI/ B3tw==
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:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZIhPOzRz2E5I96Vm+G0k9Dc3PzzDgP52FPQYM7Yr8ts=; b=QRLXbyVgAuajN5iAjHg0W0pA7rhth2I/N13sw8yA+XbTG/3O1iZbIFUbR2yVKFiYXt hJK3WyIHVqlo8tAogfW8uPRovBlBxtkr8UnSXEz4C76zWJShmWdXrQYzuvnbnpsPMH7/ rIUTaWhm92RB5/Ivm+63/8pABrRAr/t+6YGB9eSOYIZP+cby7OhcXwDPWQMSwYUuDidW UUgcxpMi/P51zmk2UYeZhvGWwP+pU4PrSGDOKg9dztrn7+MzUaAjNi58Lry9W82BXBVX JoBOgXKMMDnoz3sNpbE7aX6GFdFdV7rZufXHG0hV1/Um+zy/6XcqpMNW2T4K7efKgkU/ MVRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111TbhlQUrnPEgrcPPhnmMZFpupW+vVQpFWm0gmiI/guRdXROo3i zEdHGI7TD6d9noz4
X-Received: by 10.84.134.34 with SMTP id 31mr23647986plg.57.1500163193703; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (69.21.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [123.255.21.69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u63sm10704110pgd.49.2017.07.15.16.59.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <40d757eb97564bc8bb0511063bd9d3f4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com> <c7b140bf69104cd3877a7da03fbf17e7@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <32924d19-e5ce-7606-77f4-925b682065f5@gmail.com> <745583ab45bb407a9a210020a96773c5@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1dVbRc-0000GQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b6da9e67-1f4e-8900-5a3b-575d0c6fd2fd@gmail.com> <m1dWNIL-0000FpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <3d2f1182-ec 19-959e-a63f-ad0d316bbacf@gmail.com> <BBC09C3B-BBA7-4B40-A44C-D6D7FB306314@employees.org> <596A8A5 2.9030108@foobar.org> <FCEE7BF1-A276-4243-B9CC-FE2BDE25183C@employees.org> <596A95B7.6000408@foobar.org> <6a23ce43-89c3-0b37-a2da-70d40ba48b53@gmail.com> <AAA57E96-F827-4563-9950-285FBF1A603D@umn.edu>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <c6777f76-bb77-9610-4e9c-03a80cd693fa@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:59:46 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AAA57E96-F827-4563-9950-285FBF1A603D@umn.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9t6C_C5qqliTB_VN8gXdkSMW8aM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:59:56 -0000

On 16/07/2017 11:37, David Farmer wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 15, 2017, at 17:41, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/07/2017 10:22, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> Ole Troan wrote:
>>>> This a protocol problem. DAD is built with the assumption that
>>>> physical links are reliable. 20% packet loss for multicast is common
>>>> on wifi...
>>>
>>> most protocols will croak at 20% packet loss.  If wifi cannot support
>>> multicast properly, then this is an 802.11 problem rather than a problem
>>> with DAD or any of the many other bits of ipv6 that depend on moderately
>>> reliable multicast.    
>>
>> I'm curious. If DAD has that problem, why doesn't Neighbor Discovery
>> have an equally bad problem?
>>
>> BTW, Ole is correct. While testing the GRASP prototype at the last IETF,
>> we discovered a high loss rate for LL multicast on the network.
>> However, it wasn't primarily due to WiFi. It was due to intentional
>> multicast throttling in the switches:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/g4SUu-Bhkew-54hiJF1VPP8tfcQ
> 
> Wifi APs, especially enterprise grade Wifi APs, frequently do arp and ND proxy, and they convert the responses from the proxy to unicast at the 802.11 layer. Sometimes they even only do unicast at the 802.11 layer and replicate all multicast into 802.11 unicasts. Frequently this is more efficient than multicast because of the differences between the basic rate encoding used for multicast packets vs the usually much higher density encoding used for unicast packets.
> 
> That usually keeps things working well enough.

ND proxy shouldn't break DAD, as I understand RFC4389. So logically,
DAD is just as reliable as basic ND, right?

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email