Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 13 November 2017 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 52B7F1289B5; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:50:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 GXLI99YiLOlN; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F34D8127B52; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (dhcp-9240.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.146.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2C622D4F99; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:50:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99450200BFBE5E; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:50:08 +0800 (+08)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <1CBBB814-CB4C-4A0F-92B7-9D2ECB98BC18@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7E48012B-D9E0-4C07-90F6-C2A6BFD3292F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:50:07 +0800
In-Reply-To: <d86e4678-7634-5574-3151-056fe92602aa@si6networks.com>
Cc: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <e7ec4633-8d45-1cff-ce37-48dafd488e13@si6networks.com> <BBAB48C0-384B-4380-9359-7965C7C61D58@employees.org> <4b7e8e53-ea7a-f84d-92cf-a9a113c200ce@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1NG93Jv7E6hKY4BKApwJg6uG0wAgUL74cw1Fb5VsKnUg@mail.gmail.com> <14d489ec-0b28-8fe5-e28c-35a1f4fc15de@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaPb8vOxfUVk-6sQNGpftegPCgb+j3OyGD55rmCado+VZw@mail.gmail.com> <a4a380b0-d69c-1c2c-fedc-0a3da2a8060a@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaPg=qOpiwJ29Bq92m2RfZ-VDJtLWb-GgZV7bXP6iELiRA@mail.gmail.com> <d86e4678-7634-5574-3151-056fe92602aa@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/MXJChBVPfHnk1SOjimQbCMzkXtE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:50:38 -0000

Fernando,

>> I would leave this up to the operators to decide.
> 
> We are the ones trying to make SLAAC stateful, contributing to IPv6
> automatic configuration complexity, and apparent lack of coherence with
> respect to which protocol supports both, and why we e.g. disregard the
> work of other WGs (e.g. dhc).
> 
> If you want to *partially* duplicate functionality in another protocol,
> please provide a rationale, or don't.

repeating something enough times doesn't make it true.

>> They are designing
>> their network and know their requirements best.
> 
> Exactly: nobody specified the requirements, or said why DHCPv6-PD
> doesn't fullfill them.

this is for public WIFI. hosts are unchanged. DHCPv6 PD is a non-starter deployment wise.

>> There are many factors the weigh into why operators make certain
>> decisions.  There are circumstances were DHCPv6-PD would be quite
>> valid, and others, as described in the draft, where the methods
>> described are desirable.  I don't think there is any one way to build
>> a network (I am yet to have built two that look exactly the same given
>> different input requirements).
> 
> You still have not answered my question.

with regards to complexity. from a ND/SLAAC perspective this is a lot simpler. not more complex. don't make things up.
no address resolution, no ND cache, no need to rewrite L2 multicast to unicast and maintain state in WLCs/APs... I could go on.

I think it is time to shelf this discussion now.

Ole