Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)

james woodyatt <> Mon, 06 February 2017 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEBFD129482 for <>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:58:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 DVnCh0MGMJW8 for <>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:57:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 775E4127601 for <>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:57:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y143so26645419pfb.0 for <>; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:57:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=KwgN75cZDG+rrXu4gZulwokXdp2qyUcAaeqb+3+Aoes=; b=WLV3uFh6Uuqn+tY0PLSDdKOJaE9ehdiIIvhcu2y99DCEirdwSgGdTDJ9ka7MP3x+YI X33lmQEPw+3Q6DKwmep9MvcXfrXYt/0kkPOm6vvncZVu7kYfZbHN+deycqzqgfjSuAGS QO3juaqFZwu+K1K2ohizad3ufwtxuJ3wT9Y1W9qXD+IKMwh/uqVArUVRqlsWZl8AxnyQ ecGdvYIwnqE6tqQNxXXP7Qvu87KIlWKGK12SeRqBaAQRxc+o3gSXHGmCMlUPXnNmmDy9 Wu7xtecIbCmawjIVbFaCZZerbAsUZLlj9Wrq529Il2I7Q4RDt/n3kxm8Dz2GaIlGHRed Gr8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=KwgN75cZDG+rrXu4gZulwokXdp2qyUcAaeqb+3+Aoes=; b=prdErfIrfkc53dUmkQv8WHmQsUrhyikW95eOvvDLy+6b/PZ1VQW/m8teGymk9XEnVR C0EydpX7vg9fDLMVTNipG4UvE+b2e/hXsAzh9iG1qjrVFIbyauOy8ziUmKyK/nwFoBXd bUuVcXiMd/a8ql3KQsrwWKyf8UHflUnndYcU19YWvrstWeQksEXEMoKQqrxVyIQr2YAX /23FA6ipgg5RDep/c1LgOJBOF4Q7ViW1GS9ExLe1Qal0Nq/XWGRN9X4Pb1MvD7Imb+9b tDw6vQBEKDfkzAu5Gdf1UXNVusVWBm7gLXzZzGFTcpjPwvsM7QekbJ2koZEQmJxqtiAv TaUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJVq6kgN9YB2svqMhGgCc542WscqEmzW5Hqb7hehg2TTxoN0DtLHBIyWLSg7HQL+pzg
X-Received: by with SMTP id s2mr15858748pge.43.1486414678826; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:57:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id u124sm4970855pgb.6.2017. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:57:58 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2E1958DD-CDA2-4D17-9335-AF70AF27B7E1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Route Information Options in Redirect Messages (updated)
From: james woodyatt <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:58:24 -0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:58:00 -0000

Hi Lorenzo,

I’m writing here to concur explicitly with everything Fred wrote in a his recent reply to this, and also to add my response to a particular point.

On Feb 6, 2017, at 11:51, Templin, Fred L <> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 17:26, Lorenzo Colitti <> wrote:

>> More in general it looks like this document is trying to reinvent a fair amount of stuff that's already covered in detail, and more robustly, in homenet. Why not use those solutions instead?
> […] About reinventing homenet, I think you would find that these concepts have been around a lot longer than home net.

Also, I’m not sure to what you’re referring here, Lorenzo. From my perspective, this draft is meant to address a problem that HOMENET has not yet addressed in its long history. In fact, I wrote to HOMENET on 19 Jan asking for review and comment on this draft. (Thanks for responding!)

The question I asked HOMENET is one this draft tries to answer: in the real world, how do routers inform *hosts* (not just other HOMENET routers) about optimal paths to more-specific routes?

The question is relevant, because in the real world, typical general-purpose home devices do not have RFC 4191 Type C behavior, and they will likely never have Type C behavior, for all the reasons that major operating systems vendors generally do not feature it in their factory default configuration, and most don’t even surface a reasonable human interface for motivated users to enable it. Because RA validation is difficult and RIO is a big big big rock to throw at a Type C host.

Clearly, relying on hosts to have RFC 4191 Type C behavior is insufficient. Hence the need for this draft. What in particular do you think HOMENET did here that is better? If I overlooked something, then I’d be grateful for any pointer you could provide.

--james woodyatt < <>>