Re: [v6ops] prefix length ban for RFC4861 (Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07)

james woodyatt <> Mon, 06 March 2017 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08589129A5C for <>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:26:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pe-x1tbzgbZx for <>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BEBF129A5B for <>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j5so65988595pfb.2 for <>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:26:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=7BtEy91/9LEM5lrmPSCBTsQHvIGQWxW0+P8j0TVbjDM=; b=EzKwtW5CvoLm4Jkpc+4iy56BNezpbsgLnilRtUoWEChbzr0eMdRQEsdBs+rAf5uFMh ytwuVeMFHpzvCn4OnyfFkAzH4QlFetB7fT+SYG2DLTPJsQLaKbw8ioBD4ZHBckwF3Oj8 bWmTQoZoKkhH3DzTYcohHzITG7pzyKtalq+xcj5UnIy/97KaPePw7IBMkKydQmJoD/Is iT408417KsAJR2/cKRg81UaXjZ/1FYd4YNkrFEElVstVbVd7d7y//iZoQyvDNg8ukxvT umkafvSUfa/JO7MFcKVq9apDimMHFEZrjlChx2uHNuAua8jdfybPAym0usJ5CgAXy/LE ZGsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=7BtEy91/9LEM5lrmPSCBTsQHvIGQWxW0+P8j0TVbjDM=; b=Mj7phA9ig8mOh2wyMU+Wrp4tsqf5wbEjsXHVcxoPavyhFFgUmXp7m4Zy9m+DqJnfws LwgshnsGWAxX7rK95lzqXecll0vHVeLdwOu1yADdM/ucApktwp1UMFghHFRxRThVeu4O fim1iywKbsrAbdHejM7beQa8hefozRxGswKsqGTnY3kBL6UzXwMh0ICOZhi7syeZO4bY 2Gi4di9I25a314BMVCH5fabhgVoxxFtKwU6HsRY+VLRHB/rJYnFxQocXe0wrJVTjs0d/ r6T4JsjdyyZhXnEuRalB1UvKiWXlQx/xvQnsnVAofmYz1Nm5ZLW/5Bxs/lJqLBMmywNz M/ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mJAnUdLUcvU77MJBwGjch9S7dC5siVaRzLprWdL1Zup9MQhWJkwKwEHK/Ux+eZHRHZ
X-Received: by with SMTP id w33mr30003992plb.105.1488839176674; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:26:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id n189sm41415559pfn.108.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:26:16 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E0D7DD33-9A65-46A3-89CC-953C2F50C6D2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] prefix length ban for RFC4861 (Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:26:15 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
To: =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>, 6man WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:26:19 -0000

On Mar 6, 2017, at 14:15, 神明達哉 <> wrote:
> BSD variants did NOT ignore PIO for on-link determination simply due
> to its prefix length value at least at the time of the publication of
> RFC4862 (actually since way before that RFC).  For example, this is
> FreeBSD's implementation as of Oct 21, 2005, about two years before
> RFC4862 was published:
> see nd6_prelist_add() starting at line 993, and find that it only
> checks the prefix length for SLAAC (lines from 1258).  At this point
> the on-link determination has been completed without any check on the
> prefix length (lines 1043-1056).

Indeed, I am unable to find source code history in FreeBSD, NetBSD or Darwin consistent with my memory. Perhaps I am mistaken that it was ever there.

>> order to pass a certification test. I believe these implementations
>> will not any longer pass that test. (One imagines either their
>> owners don’t care, or the test has been revised to be more lenient.)
> This is quite surprising to me.  Do you have any reference to such a
> certification test that requires the host to ignore PIO with a non-64
> prefix length for the purpose of on-link determination (i.e., for
> RFC4861)?

My admittedly questionable memory is that it was a USGv6 Test Program for SLAAC [Host] Conformance that checked for this behavior in a host implementation I maintained at the time. As I said, I wouldn’t be surprised if that test has been revised to be more lenient, but I remember having to modify the KAME source code to pass the test.

Nevertheless, the LwIP stack does what I’m talking about, and it’s used in a plethora of constrained resource host operating systems these days.

--james woodyatt < <>>