Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 11 December 2013 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1E21ADFDF; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:48:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.992
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 3vK0BaWZ8lX5; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36181ADF9D; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [50.94.79.230] ([50.94.79.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id rBBIkPEY024101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:46:26 -0800
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com rBBIkPEY024101
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1386787587; bh=3bMoSZza8KdqcwiL098fwvUlltI=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=LmtD2Z1L/VNf0XFi5wMsdwp2KK+if61Fdgzt/ZiEbuPLmgZg3tGBFgw2/eocrFfrK y8Bot9FW03frilC2EDvEcBNc3YilAyc4ktSPGWg5sWnMdwi/v9wirkX/MwKpElL51p 5YPyAqIeZz83eTh/ciBw/AnUQ6uviguLFE1X2OD0=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <52A8343C.3040202@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:46:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <902F8E77-5A5D-4762-88EB-150118CA1B8F@delong.com>
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <7B4820C5-B562-4BE7-8C6A-CBCDABC39728@nominum.com> <A583EFC3-71BB-4962-875C-4AB775D13491@delong.com> <46BE373C-D476-4D83-B014-56B77FD3D67E@nominum.com> <39280481-09C5-41ED-B79E-99DBBD329F44@employees.org> <52A8343C.3040202@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 11 Dec 2013 18:48:25 -0000

On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 10/12/2013 18:44, Ole Troan a écrit :
>>>> In no case do I believe that M or O provide any indication about
>>>> IA_PD.
>>> 
>>> You should read RFC 7084 again, then.
>>> 
>>> Standards say what they say, not what you think they should say!
>>> :)
>> 
>> RFC7084 isn't a standard. can we please stop this now. having the M/O
>> debate one more time is unlikely to provide a different result than
>> the previous times we have had this debate.
> 
> I agree we should go past the typical M/O debate, learn from it.
> 
> One way I read the ongoing discussion, if I am not wrong, is that there
> is difficulty created by the lack of a flag specific to IA_PD ("As far
> as I know the M flag is linked only to IA_NA. As far as I can see IA_PD
> is not linked to the M flag at all.”).

> 
> Am I the only to read this as maybe a hint towards necessity of creation
> of a new flag akin to M/O but specific to IA_PD? I.e. it would be allow
> a Router to see whether it may be able to specifically request a
> Delegated Prefix even when it would self-configure its address by other
> means than DHCP.

I don’t see the need. A router which wants a prefix should ask for one.

The worst case is it doesn’t get an answer.

The next worst case is it is denied.

What is the benefit of having a flag to (sometimes) say that prefixes are
available for the asking?

> 
> (in the past some local thought was given about how RA would advertise a
> capability of delegating prefixes, e.g. this 'D' flag in a draft:
> 
>>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>   |     Type      |     Code      |           Checksum            |
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>   | Cur Hop Limit |M|O|H|Prf|P|D|r|        Router Lifetime        |
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> )
> 

I wasn’t around for that discussion, but my guess would be that the discussion
likely came to the same conclusion I did… If you want a prefix, ask. A D flag
wouldn’t really improve anything.

Owen