RE: I-D Action: draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-09.txt

Agreed;

The original Wi-Fi emulated a broadcast domain to benefit from the IP support over ethernet.
One of those short term solutions that end up lasting a lot longer than desirable.

Ideally the choice of the IP link model (set of P2P, P2MP, or leverage the broadcast emulation as today) should be available at L3.
That's if/when we do our piece of the work. 

I refuse to sit on the problem and claim that the issue is on the IEEE side, to provide a cheap, reliable and efficient multicast. And ignore the laws of physics from the ivory tower of L3. The result has been a 20-years status quo of using an efficient broadcast that defeats the purpose of L3 multicast and hinders the adoption of IPv6 over Wi-fi.

Let's just  do the work. If 6MAN is not the place to publish it, at least we'll have done the necessary hand waving.

Keep safe;

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
> Sent: mercredi 19 mai 2021 8:05
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-09.txt
> 
> The problem is even bigger:
> the most popular L2 technology in the world (by number of interfaces)
> claims that it is shared multi-access then fails to sustain this claim.
> Because WiFi is P2MP in reality.
> Let us treat it as P2MP - many problems would disappear.
> 
> It is already a decade late to do what has been promised in RFC 4861:
> " However, because ND uses link-layer multicast for some of its
>    services, it is possible that on some link types (e.g., Non-Broadcast
>    Multi-Access (NBMA) links), alternative protocols or mechanisms to
>    implement those services will be specified (in the appropriate
>    document covering the operation of IP over a particular link type)."
> 
> Ed/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert
> (pthubert)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 12:24 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-09.txt
> 
> I agree with that Brian;
> 
> the definition is too limiting for many networks we observe today,
> typically networks where one will not set the onlink bit in a PIO.
> 
> In a sense it was already an over-limiting definition at the time that
> rfc was published, e.g., some implementations like Proteon/IBM could
> model a frame relay network as P2MP or NBMA in the late 90’s. In the
> same time frame, RFC 2461 recognized the existence of NBMA and the need
> for further studies to support it.
> 
> I guess we’re here to broaden the picture.
> 
> More importantly, the rfc describes the lower layer network as opposed
> to the abstraction of it that one choses to apply at the IO layer. It is
> important to remind the user that the L3 model is a conscious decision
> that is not fully dictated by the lower layer subnetwork.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> > Le 18 mai 2021 à 23:06, Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > On 19-May-21 00:31, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> >> RFC 3819 is mostly not an overlap with what we’re trying to do here,
> Mark. But that’s a cool reference to keep in mind, thank you for this.
> >
> > Specifically, it says:
> >
> >   Subnetworks fall into two categories: point-to-point and shared.  A
> >   point-to-point subnet has exactly two endpoint components (hosts or
> >   routers); a shared link has more than two endpoint components, using
> >   either an inherently broadcast medium (e.g., Ethernet, radio) or a
> >   switching layer hidden from the network layer (e.g., switched
> >   Ethernet, Myrinet [MYR95], ATM).
> >
> > and that is exactly what is no longer always true.
> >
> >   Brian
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Pascal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:* ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Mark Smith
> >> *Sent:* mardi 18 mai 2021 9:06
> >> *To:* Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> >> *Cc:* 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
> >> *Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
> >> draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-09.txt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 18 May 2021, 07:55 Brian E Carpenter,
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>    Hi,
> >>
> >>    IMHO this draft now includes some important new material, namely
> >> definitions of two terms "IP Link" and "IP Subnet" (at
> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless
> >> -09.html#name-terminology
> >> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireles
> >> s-09.html#name-terminology> ). While I'm not sure yet that I
> >> completely agree with the text, I think the topic is very important,
> >> since the previous
> > doctrine has effectively been that all "links" behave like Ethernet.
> > And, by the way, the socket API incorporates that doctrine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> RFC 3819, Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers, also being BCP
> > 89, would seem to me to be the or close to the IETF's definition of a
> "link" since it is providing advice on the design of them:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Abstract
> >>
> >>    This document provides advice to the designers of digital
> >>    communication equipment, link-layer protocols, and packet-switched
> >>    local networks (collectively referred to as subnetworks), who wish
> to
> >>    support the Internet protocols but may be unfamiliar with the
> >>    Internet architecture and the implications of their design
> > choices on
> >>    the performance and efficiency of the Internet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Mark.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    (This is something that gave us quite a lot of angst in ANIMA,
> >> especially in clarifying the "link" model in the Autonomic Control
> >> Plane, since we depend on link-local multicast.)
> >>
> >>    Regards
> >>       Brian
> >>
> >>>    On 18-May-21 02:45, internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-
> drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          Title
> >    : IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks
> >>>          Author
> >   : Pascal Thubert
> >>>        Filename        : draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-
> 09.txt
> >>>        Pages
> >  : 25
> >>>        Date            : 2021-05-17
> >>>
> >>> Abstract:
> >>>     This document describes how the original IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
> and
> >>>     Wireless ND (WiND) can be applied on various abstractions of
> wireless
> >>>     media.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wirele
> >>> ss/
> >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wirel
> >>> ess/>
> >>>
> >>> There is also an HTML version available at:
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireles
> >>> s-09.html
> >>> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wirele
> >>> ss-09.html>
> >>>
> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wirel
> >>> ess-09
> >>> <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wire
> >>> less-09>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > submission
> >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org
> <http://tools.ietf.org>.
> >>>
> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >>> <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> I-D-Announce mailing list
> >>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>
> >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >>> <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html> or
> >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >>> <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>
> >>>
> >>
> >>    ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >>    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >>    ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
> >>    Administrative Requests:
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------