Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt - /63 and /65 RAs on linux

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 02 March 2017 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 E39C51294BB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 01:31:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 6c_PF71ozJaR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 01:31:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14A47129459 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 01:31:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id D6C04A5; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:31:07 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1488447067; bh=p2fkus0mxcFjpquHGinPpZsZdtpQiXBNOsEOhec9xkc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TYCg/VHc19pp/Ukf+N5SW0+l9D3pwlPlsk3OGUFSucjqHH47BQSNJm30oEW93zUSg avER6lvejsYxWVBY2wl2mk/gCC4rbk4y4GZeoT6R+ki+uxBUkZaeOjHdTMpbPcg3Ay /VkJibVEb/fghr50KTgFiiLMEmxHN6QTfrhCQcCg=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D349DA4; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:31:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:31:07 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt - /63 and /65 RAs on linux
In-Reply-To: <ba025be6-709d-87b4-f388-d6f143408277@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703021029010.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <CAL9jLaYirty22iGiEjEaYq3_KA1FZhxBTOBWuFOXQ9C-WPd5xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0n6oFm538XdJOcuO1yg92BCDD3mBu5YfBVm_+g-gtcKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYO=uYgVfSZ0SoSe0SujJ1xgwEKE8WLzo_keJHywgXTtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1vJV5O_Ythp6THkAu4-YZXV82Upny1V+ybbjCVZQQX=A@mail.gmail.com> <27cce319-18ac-5c0e-3497-af92344f0062@gmail.com> <de4988be-6031-08d9-84ce-21c3fa4f9bc9@gmail.com> <98401ef7-cf41-b4a0-4d11-a7d840181bd0@gmail.com> <1047f5fc-ae40-be52-6bab-27f31fe5e045@gmail.com> <9a94feac-8d59-b153-d41c-04fc371e4db4@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z7v4gDk91b6Of-1sczV88m3B9kzn0MeJU_VBJ416k6Ww@mail.gmail.com> <ae35b45a-0398-840f-fc0d-1f64dd2fcc58@gmail.com> <37851ee3-03be-8bee-6190-f4d28df86305@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1703012051590.30226@uplift.swm.pp.se> <b5784622-c24e-a531-4e68-249b03701941@gmail.com> <CAAedzxrSTFe0GgYuvtXPNE=R_ZCXotxL7HbKdj5A4-869rncmw@mail.gmail.com> <ba025be6-709d-87b4-f388-d6f143408277@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Jcb_VSHk8YCSctPnpG7lX_10ImE>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:31:13 -0000

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> perfectly fine to use that plen==65 to have an entry in the rt table, and use 
> a manually configured address in that plen.

Linux does the right thing in not autoconfiguring itself address(es) when 
plen isn't 64. However, what does it do when it receives an PIO with plen 
of 65 and M=1 and then it gets an IA_NA and configures that on the 
interface? Doesn't it install the /65 in the routing table?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se