Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

David Farmer <> Fri, 10 November 2017 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D771294B2 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:25:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cFPeo5sD4-a4 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E9511294C9 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14054B37 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 21:25:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFqzUQg_9-hR for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:25:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A76D269F for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:25:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: by with SMTP id t5so2802808lfe.1 for <>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:25:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=enoORXUFwaNNGUg+DsBWUz/VrsjCI94lfD3MYFPF8iY=; b=IXUQ8qlO8J1KUmLiCIg30FIuwJGz8fWVOLUxvlgMTwYvrQa7wru1jBuJKLE48sknEI yXMQePxoSMP0ta284nxgE99W918YDUViRy5egIPmhCM9BmWXaHNFm9s6Sz/9/UcdvI6N UOisLh6KiHm1sgqzrsyo+dOkRVUQ45/iqdKUGpExDWSSLqx8fiArEw/U0UfNvpnjVeBO 9OV10mbDENKAUDGWnQ5DQXl3Wv/mfUdtWLIku7SR3fbJYSW3Uyo6F3aF9MelP9HqZNLc KyienVwu4gdZR89uTIrvGC1qVBH+l5SOyFdKCMFL3y9+ilHEVqo9yLnNOBUK5Oxyh9lg 1pcg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=enoORXUFwaNNGUg+DsBWUz/VrsjCI94lfD3MYFPF8iY=; b=p1Ss0B/Qe+si3hQ/TArGbUnSggoPfebhCZO5aXr0i/Vn8gGacdcaG2kvn5ldCNETgl TBraodbilj/lsSq055lWBeenvY9sjedt9e/V7E3NqwzU4w83+ewNSbTWBWsMZw7MkRsQ blEL3bHMdiSQ2cZWuv4F6WALJByxslMyxs9qGfqiIH21dEw4kh+flYmI7YjoWO3mqSiK gctukt4P+RmbMULed7CPtNjrPOCqVVa+LaoLkOMm73cYP+FlD17sGT6anOySdPsnxHlW 9Z19EEcjH4/+r9QatG0KHIXMn6/bl9FkKd9ci0dcEpa/SKkEeuPXOzQpulWi/LXvhKsu JWvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX60CF0a8o7MezL1RdqcCPhodJvoyBs8TA63XME1O07fok6DrcWw gDCkWGh9Doil86WURD7sx2QiBbU3jnoZ2cIAb5UEnTliURTVz8kdNWjiYDMrMC+ptcNuLcP8W+F HAXWvWkO//uclYyfwNnD2UhDB
X-Received: by with SMTP id l192mr562674lfl.35.1510349125783; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:25:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZHcKJHHVjefr2i21T0jHFQSPC3/h4+VMF/DoGhWPqnd/0/M/BNzKcS8bZGTCbbXUvikIh5HayOoOO62+asUL0=
X-Received: by with SMTP id l192mr562671lfl.35.1510349125507; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:25:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:25:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: David Farmer <>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:25:24 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Fernando Gont <>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <>, V6 Ops List <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114106701d13d6055da78f01"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 21:25:33 -0000

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Fernando Gont <> wrote:

> Hi, Brian,
> Please let me top-post to try to focus the discussion here:
> 1) My comment to the list was essentially arguing that this document
> contains a protocol specification, and such part is not suitable. I
> think it should be easy to converge on something regarding this one:

I can see how you might have come to that conclusion.  However, I don't
believe the document defines a new protocol or actually changes the old
one. As I see it, the document merely points out an interaction between two
existing protocol specifications, that allows for a desired implementation
outcome of providing a unique prefixes per host using SLAAC. Those being
primarily RFC4861 section 6.2.4, "Sending Unsolicited Router
Advertisements" and RFC6085 "Address Mapping of IPv6 Multicast Packets on
Ethernet".  The desired result is consistent with the protocols as they are
currently defined, the document doesn't change anything, it only points out
facts of the current specifications that may not be entirely obvious to
everyone implementing the specifications and that are critical to the
desired outcome of the draft.  Or put another way, the document specifies
how to implement to the current protocols consistent the desired outcome of
providing a unique prefixes per host.

What track IETF document is needed to accomplish that, is a judgment call
for the IESG, as I see it there are valid arguments for this to be a
standards track, BCP, or an informational document.

However, I'm fine with the current status of BCP personally.


David Farmer     
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952