Re: Metadata over IPv6

Brian Haley <haleyb.dev@gmail.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <haleyb.dev@gmail.com>
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 E427012008C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:08:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.757
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.757 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ItSIerJygMv5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:08:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (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 7AFD1120013 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:08:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id l14so1447323qvu.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:08:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aI78gm5X0ib0sHXedZaIaAOdkYH6dkTykx9/4fF+IVE=; b=iqWGgck0uBa5QILegsHOCiduE+7+lH2lNB69Py0OjdmCCedDvSmvRzgjyFzYOq6bbD bt2aWGVJpyjh2iJGjozGem1ZcHMD2mgvEKlN2xXhufLjqdDKTNcSqUj+3dZVkylt0Rqh cbyasqVJqyELFEzZ4CJHa7Kj7y5+8kBnbiirGLarzLCHGMxUZx62czB4wkIyFZQMw2Dx iqO99BEqvVVfoKzXgQ4aQ7DWJja1JqADSK8XvztxzxQcowkxPWDV2YQiZDPMO2MmUClk VSOA3ckCa6rejlyXTJ5gWNQi2LReX5CReu8iovtyx19az1rFrsQmkatuSBJQkKUUALoR ZJ6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aI78gm5X0ib0sHXedZaIaAOdkYH6dkTykx9/4fF+IVE=; b=JQ+C+EU2lsSWufG7pcvV3eOSfN6qS4Q3J3LrsPpah2loe68IcytTW+1h5LMCLRxPDG X9XU7jqNy5l6EcDQkzQY8/E4zGlDj289yZF/5PoQXm/GLLcd9GoLGBVib7ZcFPM90SxI CyKpt5ZwBqfZ2BKGUZJ1PyfTfiqk6qJloSXb7DEnCfoz7J4G7b2rw4cu3if04t0UvTuh TrJ/ubzpGlkN2k+ZGcu9WyxyqqfCEqHUdgU7r0JGNYuQbVlIpg9ylifbqc04MiXsRl0+ 0Ca4jyyIECSC+pLMOEMc1JDYyRNmAhHW7XF2g9DkWDtMHKgdvWKUUsYRC1FRxllFGNkj P1pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVmnx3ePKZIA+1KA+Vz7BZcfEHKV77UiNUg9UXne8zCKD1mVLY+ wFUOTrNcEPLTnaAJs8bamk0yL26zLRo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwN0T7kK8H6+dF2wUlLCkfkSU1lqYQqFRiuXV/GFG2AOw3tYPHVQLh0YcC3zc5rW6ShTvdMpw==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5674:: with SMTP id bm20mr4940499qvb.88.1576710534890; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.18.57.43] (nat-pool-bos-t.redhat.com. [66.187.233.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v7sm1256457qtk.89.2019.12.18.15.08.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Metadata over IPv6
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <eee1ebe3-dd1a-1a5b-21a8-739857995abf@gmail.com> <32CDF4DD-6AB2-453B-9C62-2DE854BEF764@gmail.com> <6202a23d-0676-acd1-5308-491f6323839d@gmail.com> <4C7D7A5E-AA0C-4089-BDD6-9C6819EF8F55@employees.org> <AFF898F1-2C49-44CC-95BD-BAF5156674C7@gmail.com> <0cc715fd-e49c-b6fb-0703-624cefdaf693@gmail.com> <84DC68B2-36D6-4B79-AF72-8B03EDE8DCA4@employees.org>
From: Brian Haley <haleyb.dev@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52d440d7-6416-6ea5-2718-e9c80a2b793a@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 18:08:52 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <84DC68B2-36D6-4B79-AF72-8B03EDE8DCA4@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Jvi5_3O9lMOG6JfKUkcwAq4Kh9Q>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 23:08:59 -0000

On 12/18/19 4:35 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>>>> Is you problem solvable using "service discovery" (e.g. DNS-SD)?
>>
>> It *might* be, but I can't guarantee DNS will always be present, so it would be better to have a well-known address.  Typically this part of initialization in a cloud image is done in cloud-init, which is right after DHCP completes, and the address it uses is hard-coded in the binary itself to make things simple.
>>
>> That's not to say mDNS couldn't be used, but having to deploy something in order to do a single lookup for 'metadata.local' could add a lot of overhead since there could be thousands of private networks involved, each with it's own daemon.
> 
> We have been around the "service discovery" block a few times. Not one of the industry's proudest moments.
> Not to rehash all the alternatives here.
> 
> If I understand you correctly, the problem you like to solve is "How can I find the Openstack(?) provisioning URL for this link?".

I'd have to ask specifics of the cloud-init maintainers, but from what I 
know and can glean from source code it wants a url:

DEF_MD_URL = "http://169.254.169.254"

This can vary depending on the cloud, and each image for a specific 
cloud will have a "baked-in" url for this.

> I'm little uneasy about reserving a well-known interface-id/address for the purpose. Isn't it a layer violation? I'm just a little concerned about collectivily taking the cost too. And scale as well, if lots of "applications" are required to be provisioned this way.
> 
> There are probably 10-15 ways of doing it.
> If you do DHCP anyway, why couldn't the URL be passed as an option in DHCP?

Yes, there are many ways to do this, it all seems to rely on a 
well-known link-local address being reachable though.  I'm reluctant to 
suggest a DHCP option since it will add complexity since more parts will 
needed to be changed to support it.

-Brian