RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <> Thu, 10 July 2008 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8DA43A6891; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4803A6891 for <>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.963
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.636, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ISoyNJkHNllU for <>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ABB63A680E for <>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,339,1212364800"; d="scan'208";a="13854925"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2008 16:09:01 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6AG91k5007686; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:09:01 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6AG91tp007871; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:09:01 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:09:01 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:09:01 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcjiS/sGCjzEIIn7QqO4cUPjvJttCgAWfRAg
References: <> <> <> <>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>
To: <>, "Suresh Krishnan" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 16:09:01.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[448E4750:01C8E2A7]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3509; t=1215706141; x=1216570141; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20<shemant@cisco. com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=206MAN=20WG=20Last=20Call=3Adraft-ietf-6m an-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20<>,=20=22Suresh=20Krishnan=22=2 0<>; bh=dShoJIGML0iul6euPi/sFv/zD6GaAeXfEDp+UZ9NY2U=; b=Cigwa7xUGWBYwTNeMejbJvpnPZW22+O/rtoM+1YaOYGYjoH2rZj4b8vQTo 9q6XjnU/63xCWlPRwg8joYDAVfaHWdSfHOswW9BFtwHHzBh4U0SXNQp80RA2 B3uTRVwEHH;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
Cc: Thomas Narten <>,, Bob Hinden <>, Brian Haberman <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Since you don't want any new rules added by our draft, we changed bullet
3 related to caching on-link determination. The new bullet text does not
add any normative requirements but clearly says why it is a bad idea to
cache on-link determination.  Also, our draft is about on-link
determination - we are not adding anything related to IPv6 address
caching - we have said repeatedly, save it for another day.

The old text of bullet 3 was:

       On-link determination SHOULD NOT persist across IPv6 interface
       initializations.  Note that section 5.7 of [RFC4862] describes
       the use of stable storage for addresses acquired with stateless
       address autoconfiguration with a note that the Preferred and
       Valid Lifetimes must be retained if this approach is used.
       However no RFC suggests or recommends retaining the on-link

New text is as follows:

                  If on-link determination persists across IPv6
interface initializations,
                  then lack of IPv6 connectivity can result.  For
example, a host receives
                  an RA from a router with on-link prefix A.  The host
reboots.  During the 
                  reboot, the router sends out prefix A with on-link bit
set and a zero 
                  lifetime to indicate a renumbering.  The host misses
the renumbering.  
                  The host comes online.  Then, the router sends an RA
with no PIO.
                  The host uses cached on-link prefix A and issues NS's
instead of sending
                  traffic to a default router.  The "Observed Incorrect
Implementation Behavior"
                  section below describes how this can result in lack of
IPv6 connectivity. 


-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:15 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Thomas Narten; Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden;
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

At Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:54:04 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>; wrote:

> Thanks for the reply. Let's see if we can meet common ground with you.
> Our justification for prohibiting on-link caching is only in emails to

> 6man as follows:
>  "What if there are cache-inconsistency problems, prefix renumbering,

> or stale information?  I think it's better just to get rid of  caching

> on-link information in stable storage and get such  information fresh 
> from RA's.  That way, administrators can better  rationalize the 
> behavior of their network from the configured RA's."

And I replied to this justification, saying this itself cannot justify
killing on-link caching while (perhaps implicitly) allowing address

> Also, when Suresh Krishnan pointed out that he supports bullet 3, he 
> made us explicitly mention in the bullet that it's a new rule. We have

> been clear in the draft where there is a new rule and where it's 
> clarification. Besides this new rule, the rest of the draft is 
> clarification.

Suresh has his right to express his opinion, of course, and so do I.
I would not like this document to set new rules (note, again, that I'm
not objecting to discussing new changes to RFC4861/4862.  I'm simply
objecting to doing that in this document).

JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: