Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 21 March 2012 19:35 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 7E85721E80A9; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.502, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1zYvnFmpipN; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C44521E8092; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eeke51 with SMTP id e51so476723eek.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=f3exOZNW9KF5ruyhsYTnE6Y7FVk6+R4WwtbcCrNs35k=; b=GJhH1pPak7Z6LH4vcc8q2eJdXyzPvF7yzakTzs1U9QRYuDAoZop9ZQTusZMcjAVueR pb2E1RwtSZaerPZByV2tQUDrPWshCR3VBSQEh7CjuOaRO2+xxKxj+2OJfdi4/3nYYuuJ 08fKyQgrZHt/QBe7Mbq7GGKjXb96uIKCwz8bEBhOtsjBTXpI2uiTDNUun3OtM24ICi/P E9eEbKOmQPJRKRlnSi4xpud0nkdQfbhwWNFL3eB09Net9q0cdtBPCnX+YfTBkRuFRQwr BDEXroSDUL6LwLoZ59wTamv3qAqawhnxr6WtXTZHLdc68mETtcdC8icD7EayFRnY8tyI wtiA==
Received: by 10.14.136.16 with SMTP id v16mr696553eei.126.1332358540487; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x8sm9192394eea.10.2012.03.21.12.35.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F6A2D7F.1030901@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:35:27 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
Subject: Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]
References: <CB8F158D.14262%d.sturek@att.net>
In-Reply-To: <CB8F158D.14262%d.sturek@att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:35:42 -0000
Don, On 2012-03-22 01:24, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Tim, > > One more consideration: > In the home, it is possible that multiple independent subnets could be > combined, each with their own ULA prefix. This would happen in cases > where the homeowner buys multiple silo'ed solutions (like a home > automation system, Wi-Fi AP with connected MACs/Pcs, etc) then purchases a > cross connect device that integrates these solutions. Yes, anything could happen and probably will. So while a single ULA per site is the simple and obvious case (and I don't have any argument for Anders except KISS), there *will* be cases where several ULAs pop up, and I think resolving routing issues in that situation is likely to be troublesome. We can't resolve it as we do for enterprise networks by saying that the network's manager will manually configure appropriate routes. Brian > Don > > > > > > On 3/21/12 4:55 AM, "Tim Chown" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On 20 Mar 2012, at 21:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> On 2012-03-20 21:51, Anders Brandt wrote: >>>> It is a surprise to me that ULA addresses are not by default routable >>>> within the site. >>>> I can easily imagine a number of LLN border routers which autonomously >>>> allocate >>>> different ULA prefixes for use within their individual LLN subnets. >>> IMHO that should be a NOT RECOMMENDED behaviour. ULAs make sense if they >>> cover an entire enterprise or home network, but not if they cover a >>> subset. >>> >>>> Meeting a ULA address outside the local prefix will cause the LLN node >>>> to forward >>>> its IP packets to the default gateway (border router) of the LLN >>>> subnet. This way >>>> packets can travel between LLN subnets using normal routing with >>>> long-term stable >>>> ULA addresses. We need the stable addresses for control-style >>>> applications in LLNs. >>>> >>>> Obviously it requires a routing protocol in the (homenet) LAN but are >>>> there other issues? >>> It doesn't just require a routing protocol; it also requires a routing >>> policy >>> that knows which routers have to block the ULAs (plural). That seems a >>> lot >>> more complex that a rule that says only a border router originates and >>> delegates >>> a ULA prefix, because that border router would also know to block the >>> prefix across the border. >> So we need to determine what the homenet arch text will say on this. >> >> I think the assumption so far has been that, as per PD8 in >> draft-ietf-homenet-arch-02, >> one router would be elected the "master" to delegate /64 ULA prefixes >> within the >> homenet, both to ULA-only LLNs and to links that also have a GUA prefix. >> If there's >> an assumption an LLN router will not support that, and instead generate >> its own /48 >> ULA, we need to talk about that, or any other scenario that will lead to >> multiple /48 ULAs >> in a single homenet site. >> >> The arch text currently says that ULAs should be used (CN1) and that ULAs >> should be >> preferred for internal communications to GUAs (section 2.4). It doesn't >> say how connections >>from outside the homenet can be made to internal ULA-only devices. >> The 3484-bis text has changed the default ULA preference to protect >> against ULA leakage, >> so if you now want ULAs preferred you need to somehow inject the specific >> site /48 ULA >> being used with high precedence into the policy table (and as also >> pointed out here if your >> site is using less than a /48, you should also have some way to learn >> what the site prefix >> length is). In the homenet case is that injection achieved on receipt of >> an RA, or would it >> require the proposed DHCPv6 option to be used (which may not be widely >> implemented >> for some time, and the DHCPv6 server still needs to learn the ULA to put >> in the option)? >> >> On the one hand homenet is saying "we'd prefer to use ULAs by default >> without needing >> some magic to achieve it" while 6man is saying "we need to protect >> against ULA leakage, >> so if you want to prefer ULA for internal connection stability figure out >> the magic". >> >> This needs to be mapped to words for the homenet arch text. >> >> Tim >> >>> Anyway - maybe you should look at draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis >>> and discuss it over on v6ops. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Anders >>>>>> You'll find the above logic in the current 3484bis draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Dave >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>>>> ipv6@ietf.org >>>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> homenet mailing list >>>>> homenet@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> homenet mailing list >>>> homenet@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: 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 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise… Brian Haberman
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Chris Grundemann
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian Haberman
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian Haberman
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Chris Grundemann
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Tim Chown
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Chris Grundemann
- -06 candidate Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: -06 candidate Mark Andrews
- Re: -06 candidate Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: -06 candidate Brian E Carpenter
- Re: -06 candidate Mark Andrews
- ULA macro in the policy table Re: -06 candidate Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA macro in the policy table Re: -06 candida… Mark Andrews
- Re: ULA macro in the policy table Re: -06 candida… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA macro in the policy table Re: -06 candida… Mark Andrews
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Arifumi Matsumoto
- ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Tim Chown
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Tim Chown
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Arifumi Matsumoto
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Dave Thaler
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Dave Thaler
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Dave Thaler
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Kerry Lynn
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Arifumi Matsumoto
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Marc Lampo
- Re: IPv6 zone index was Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Marc Lampo
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- Re: Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3… Ray Hunter
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Marc Lampo
- RE: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Anders Brandt
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Anders Brandt
- Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Tim Chown
- Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Don Sturek
- IPv6 zone index was Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6ma… t.petch
- RE: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Anders Brandt
- RE: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Anders Brandt
- Re: IPv6 zone index was Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Brian E Carpenter