Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1
Pavel Simerda <pavlix@pavlix.net> Fri, 27 April 2012 15:25 UTC
Return-Path: <pavlix@pavlix.net>
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 2A85621F8795 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.093
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.206, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 YXipCbDGuA2r for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fox.pavlix.net (fox.pavlix.net [84.246.161.104]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C8A21F8794 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.40] (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by fox.pavlix.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A33AC1760BFF; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:25:39 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=pavlix.net; s=default; t=1335540340; bh=2P33dZQYOMZk7RNkAdqLdBdGlecxXa+BUCln071pzlM=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; b=naX4q72NKJxrY/Ym8gEjijm6cCC6R/FKqroXHk1GkZuIvWfB7JLrUDNhRfY2stPNS wEWIlN9qubmcL4WoerSSTgFAhdoUELx2Z8+U9RZ2TlwtBgO3A3qU7WyJkgKIpb4mEp bIwqDinCRmOpjzwLEH1azPOawcrJsb/106ifPm/Y=
Message-ID: <1335540337.8823.54.camel@dragon.pavlix.net>
Subject: Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1
From: Pavel Simerda <pavlix@pavlix.net>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:25:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <3556F78D-A80E-4975-8E87-3138E3DFCCAA@employees.org>
References: <1334871165.15947.2.camel@dragon.pavlix.net> <3556F78D-A80E-4975-8E87-3138E3DFCCAA@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.1 (3.4.1-1.fc17)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: ipv6@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: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:25:43 -0000
Hello, my proposition is the same as Teemu's or very similar. 1) I propose to change the default Lifetime from [MaxRtrAdvInterval, 2*MaxRtrAdvInterva] to a single agreed-upon recommended default value. Almost nobody would need to change this default value. 5*MaxRtrAdvInterval is IMO a good value to start with. This should be enough to avoid the need to send RS. 2) I propose to add at least some best practice about router solicitations. Typically, RS should only be used as a last resort. I suggest to start sending RS at 0.8*Lifetime +/- 0.1*Lifetime (if sending RS at all) and repeat let's say every 10-20 seconds. Note: Please remember that wireless links *sometimes* lose packets. Please remember that wireless links *often* lose multicast packets. Even some ethernet switches do. Example: MaxRtrAdvInterval = 10 minutes AdvRDNSSLifetime = (Default) 5*MaxRtrAdvInterval = 50 minutes 0.8*Lifetime = 40 minutes 0.1*Lifetime = 5 minutes Let's simplify the situation and act as if MaxRtrAdvInterval is the absolute interval (it is not!). 00:00 Router Advertisement, Lifetime = 50 minutes 00:10 Lifetime = 40 minutes (it could already time out according to the current RFC) 00:10 Router Advertisement (lost) 00:20 Lifetime = 30 minutes 00:20 Router Advertisement (lost again) 00:30 Lifetime = 20 minutes 00:30 Router Advertisement (lost the third time!) 00:35 Lifetime = 15 minutes 00:35 This is the first time RS can be sent with this best practice (the last time is 00:45, counted like that 0.8*00:50 +/- 0.1*00:50) 00:35 Router Solicitation Since then, router solicitations would be issued regularly until client recieves RA with RDNSS, connection is cancelled by user or: 00:50 Lifetime = 0 00:50 RDNSS expired Note: It is not perfect. The concept of finitely valid RDNSS is quite new. There is an open question, when to consider RDNSS information lost. It could be: 1) Last RDNSS from RAs expired. 2) Last IPv6 RDNSS expired (RDNSS or DHCPv6) 3) Last RDNSS lost (IPv6 or IPv4) Pavel Simerda On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 14:00 +0200, Ole Trøan wrote: > Pavel, > > I concur with your description of the problem. > do you have a proposal for how it can be solved? > > Best regards, > Ole > > > On Apr 19, 2012, at 23:32 , Pavel Šimerda wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I'm starting my work on linux NetworkManager. I've been following > > several bugreports during the recent months that all lead to problems > > with maintaining the list of recursive nameservers. > > > > I've already spent quite some time analyzing RDNSS problems and I came > > to a conclusion that the problem actually lives in the RFC itself. > > > > Please look at section 5.1. in RFC 6106. It states: > > > > MaxRtrAdvInterval <= Lifetime <= 2*MaxRtrAdvInterval > > > > Considering MaxRtrAdvInterval the maximum time between RAs, setting > > Lifetime to MaxRtrAdvInterval IMO constitutes a race condition. > > Moreover, any Lifetime in this interval can timeout with just one or two > > lost RAs. > > > > This makes RA-based IPv6-only networks drop RDNSS regularly. In many > > implementations IPv6 and IPv4 are bound together so that if one of them > > fails, the whole link is restarted. This is also the case in > > NetworkManager. > > > > In the current situation, it's not advisable to use RFC 6106 in > > production because it can cause problems even to IPv4 applications. > > > > In the real world, radvd uses Lifetime=MaxRtrAdvInterval by default and > > NetworkManager internally adds 10s to the lifetime, that only helps to > > avoid the race condition but not lost packets that are common on > > wireless networks. > > > > I appreciate any help to get this right both in the standards and in the > > software. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pavel Šimerda > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Pavel Šimerda
- question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Pavel Šimerda
- Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Teemu Savolainen
- Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Ole Trøan
- Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Pavel Simerda
- Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Pavel Simerda
- Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Teemu Savolainen
- Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Dan Luedtke
- Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Pavel Simerda
- Re: question on RDNSS, RFC 6106 part 5.1 Pavel Simerda