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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 09 March 2017 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 8017712950C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:33:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.369
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.229, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=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 (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 BSwozhWYlYU9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:33:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (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 2DBAB1294E6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:33:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 1so95766597qkl.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:33:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=QoXBgu/8RDUyMCFO2aLPnz5Ryn53KW1RUT9MyeEbvaU=; b=P4qFYbF7knnaxlemr3d24XeWUOq/CSIzenytb/Bn7t4G1sf6+ILUIzISYL61YbY50v cDon4U90eMt13inHuHjJFkUJcebjOpEG9h36eqVgtemDrh1zidqLsF0zEC1msU+N2evl DhMzA4ZpM9TUn00t5iFT2tZCMwynOeYgs2uMmAvJI20rekmobh9XpEAk8T1Rbo8frZG/ iE5vC1A/dL+59bTnIpgx7a89wtAiGVCZjzCKMX+7eOWc4rGoVAqNeySHbfnvmnL1FuiO KZncq1a8rx+Zo1SWWAK2L5+yoyJD4xTJuL7oF3UdgqolQgSdigHeCItrO1GWJQ96aikM NukA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QoXBgu/8RDUyMCFO2aLPnz5Ryn53KW1RUT9MyeEbvaU=; b=IGBO1h6r+N7T689ZN6BPO59tr/AFksJrCVcZZq3WJWiPM78D3XlmtEQp21UURRCbFT PCxlYMcN6/bYPLy3zXRqAqHwbUS+P7ZBzMMivVlquiGEWWVZKaoF7IWfaNNBHi4urPke v7ggZEBUCIC2huQdqbWxgiAJuStD4lmpcf6G2bqY1+2Yz7BuyceEyPgap5K1hNW0c/Nt pIepI4m9T1nZzXbdPOhe8W9JfZ0MayrlVx8VyOszWoW0mTyJ8qoQqJMD9me728gju/oT xhvuM8gZRoo6nrwMUt9aHze4ZKn63MD3hcyen4/7q7ThDcRwJrZGQbMXinK7JQb35/WM IZ8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mHxRO8bgtPMxR5agvPy51MAdm+S37XEFCkVdJvfMkyg3JnNotuoGukszZzWz8dupSAbzRK2r7C1eSdWQ==
X-Received: by 10.233.222.197 with SMTP id s188mr10337795qkf.311.1489019631206; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:33:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.61.204 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:33:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOSSMjUy2=yguYh6iMmd6O6d91WrdNEFgo9Gn+4urVp33vug2Q@mail.gmail.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> <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com> <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com> <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com> <7FAD8D2B-B50E-44C5-AAA3-0C91621D9D54@google.com> <CAOSSMjX4Rq969cTuAU+sqWmW7Rh2-nxjd1vpSkeAevVZTed1HA@mail.gmail.com> <ED8E5513-A522-4D37-A0A2-0960CF3E5394@google.com> <36251EE1-309C-44B5-BEAE-591889492547@employees.org> <9B6D49C1-D793-465B-A395-28147BD22FAC@google.com> <CAOSSMjUy2=yguYh6iMmd6O6d91WrdNEFgo9Gn+4urVp33vug2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:33:50 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: IVOMqsxHYJU9kIxw0N8paOSEhJI
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqf=8WAh8bkHpBdgBYG6ygqa5tzyy9e59jU-5s+=2PsBEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/NReayT0SiiRecN_4OeCxigUNiHo>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 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: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:33:55 -0000

At Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:54:43 -0500,
Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>; wrote:

> Since this was added in the update from RFC 2461 to 4861 I went to go look
> for why this was added and found the following thread.
>
> Discussion:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ipv6&q=Requirement+for+64bit+I%2FF+ID&so=date&gbt=1&index=rJtLf5Krh0X9vg3vYts_xO1oUCw

I guess a more relevant discussion is this:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ipv6&q=Reception+of+prefix+option+with+prefix+length+%3E+64&so=date&gbt=1

> Final Decision:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IfWdv79U0k9PbwK6-lAIk4yeyK4

In that thread, I asked the very same question as that we are having now:

>> For example, assuming a 64-bit interface identifier, if we receive
>> an RA containing an prefix information option with 80-bit prefix
>> length and with the L and A bits both being set, [...]

>> [...] I think the receiving node should still consider the
>> prefix as valid in terms of ND (i.e., consider it as "on-link") and
>> modify the next-hop determination accordingly.

>> The questions are:

>> 1. is this a correct understanding of the intention of RFC2461?

And, Erik Nordmark ("the father of ND") gave a "yes" answer to the
question:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg01801.html

So, the fact is that:
- the "lenient behavior" (like what BSDs or Linux implementations do)
  is the intent of the very original designer of ND
- we explicitly discussed this in the work on rfc2461bis and confirmed
  it

I'm not sure if this helps the current discussion, though, since one
may still insist that he is not convinced unless the RFC enforces this
intent with a strongest RFC2119 keyword (e.g., a MUST).

--
JINMEI, Tatuya