Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Tue, 07 March 2017 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
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 A106512957E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:50:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7pTZnl0RkgjM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C96E01294A4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 1so19022017qkl.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:50:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7tYTHuLHdxR1nmPkGZAPl0R+g0ePHENgzt9MQdhRaxw=; b=RMoSHv2LF8smuAB6Qf2P/o6rPKAgzJO7s4fTaeBOCIClmy6VJPEObwnD8hB+YfZllR y9WjBIhWHrsYvObqXA2ixV7BoT8KgoPzC5sXoSooayRqDooBEGye5JI/sTJ5ijQay9H/ jhLDmxF+E8WMawk8FOHekwz5bcggOTb6OGfaE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7tYTHuLHdxR1nmPkGZAPl0R+g0ePHENgzt9MQdhRaxw=; b=XDzVpO0uJ4xDHpGMNLQwRTVG2pL4cqUglSWSXS97Ffcq0tkhwJUaXrfibkZE3zlEXT +uUcgqallgrmTYHgMUzrzbF70TLBJkE3WTA/8sA+qKLdU8E2OW3glWN/101xlSlufIX0 dJcLTuF/BeF2/8i3lu6g3TW+DJCJBvGTiGMp0T9pw4Akdh4FTET+cAd15OPh1qP4aIMt AflVAvUOq+lcKfe5CNUu2FwCy+bjHE/P7TtkvwzWcr4+h6DPa/9JJM44WrLhPEu+ArD2 +tt9MtMWmVqohm9CVwS+w8f3e+SkAubbmwcNODku6Y56KIfH4F53qGL4pyq0ZiR1/6EO OkfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39np1hW5sZrkBUegu3go5AsLEUsvPWYC0C2SKl+M+WRHXKvg3vYim6woZRZb7lP99palljz+I6lCgWCcIXbC
X-Received: by 10.55.122.194 with SMTP id v185mr2130130qkc.99.1488912610858; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:50:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.225 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:50:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com> <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com>
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:50:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c063bc445dcc3054a287b2e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IXqOxGRfvcwt0UqXKvdISPUwwbo>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:50:13 -0000

Hi James,

It's valid to ignore it for SLAAC, but not ND.   RFC 4861 is clear about
processing the PIO for on-link determination, LwIP isn't following ND spec.

Regards,
Tim

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:44 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 16:34, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>; wrote:
>
>
> I don't believe this test is too strict based on 4862 Section 6.3.4 "
> Similarly,
>
>    [ADDRCONF <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#ref-ADDRCONF>] may impose certain restrictions on the prefix length for
>    address configuration purposes.  Therefore, the prefix might be
>    rejected by [ADDRCONF <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#ref-ADDRCONF>] implementation in the host.  However, the
>
>    prefix length is still valid for on-link determination when combined
>
>    with other flags in the prefix option."
>
>
> Basically ND still works even if SLAAC thinks the prefix length is invalid.   It's really a ND test for on-link deteremination.
>
>
> I’ll run away and think about this some more, but right now I think it
> might still be a valid interpretation of the RFC 4862 requirement language
> to ignore PIO entirely if Prefix Length is not valid for the link type. If
> that means LwIP fails USGv6 and IPv6 Ready Logo testing, then my opinion is
> that it's a tussle between those certification tests and those parts of the
> IPv6 standards that are not actually revised by the successor to RFC 4291.
>
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>
>
>
>


-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR