Re: rationale for the default of DupAddrDetectTransmits (Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing)

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 77D3D1294A2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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=google.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 wW1rbLsL1Xra for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x231.google.com (mail-yb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::231]) (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 7DE76128AB0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x231.google.com with SMTP id z37so2891003ybh.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5iLkJo4a8szZlGRsKonXDa9j/kXk7XVuqla/dqrxMSE=; b=vPHNSOZcGdyQqJ1v/yBElFuBPTs4LV4FhM/UYlUp73lEV4mvAcupCM6yUgyUx15iKj Y9q8VrA0Dxgxg7JS9c7BuEXAJRUUar5Sm3WLOpY7Y6y3Ef7sAiIYKfy24flSD9Yj4mQo lVL0pG0lhUvF3p9dHnHSp2quSuILuEoBlAkisA1SLDWaytgQBK9lYyLvBWw5v4n6onbW ep24mEUvhapAloRqLcthZXx16ovyPPR26E6GdFnc/xT/o6HQJtjSFAcggpCLrdLjgkT6 kLpZm8evwYtTJ5SOwoIoJURUE7PUss3mGRTVv0+YXH6KuPXPBpnB+azOLv7p/3RdwF3W xWgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5iLkJo4a8szZlGRsKonXDa9j/kXk7XVuqla/dqrxMSE=; b=Efdg3Vh5L6/LF4diYGCM9YbD2ela6NO2oM4eq/MvWIZBRpnr9hNFaS3QgEdFL3wCdp NNAUrLU8Sg1gjCjJJYxj7sa1gjCnfpBzP7yOc7ZY0WOGxMoBfSBih8WA7MPKoox5R1XI dED0VPZSjAj4mblnvLUE9ExWptpAqTW/1ZDSX/32xel5+QMu/DTeBgCf0KujEGocWd09 y8Y5+xOi50VmZsZGIWw+Bvp2MpZbMqu7gJFVpLtFSlAYxZfnkz46cVhnA+PJO8F1LJ1s sFS0Fj0MVHJywiuFnH1JiS4XA9J2xO5oJVh9tNaU4yS3bB6XMC6XeMtBWPsjVZKA6rrB 4sqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110yFugdUdRdKp1ZlJ10XXsU9bUUwp+SLKgPiJev7DzTU18Cw5Sg L+sDi2HKDWnLLwzgFgGnJTn6xsudHZjO
X-Received: by 10.37.178.9 with SMTP id i9mr19136098ybj.8.1500312521509; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.35.69 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C34277D8-7A4D-49E2-9F12-D55E49461C28@employees.org>
References: <CAJE_bqf=uoRKKyb3wLS3QG4AqyJdjrFDHYfkBsH8dvMJajns3A@mail.gmail.com> <C34277D8-7A4D-49E2-9F12-D55E49461C28@employees.org>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:28:20 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxo8=HZ+puPDWbYu6wrfzayC_TXnovuRGDSkrK70xbeWiA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: rationale for the default of DupAddrDetectTransmits (Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing)
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="f403045f37feecd239055486ba87"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QABoz7cEVsWOAxHLNaAt5KJJASQ>
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, 17 Jul 2017 17:28:44 -0000

On 18 July 2017 at 02:06, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Jul 2017, at 18:42, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
>
> At Mon, 17 Jul 2017 08:58:18 +1200,
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I looked up RFC4862 to find out how many DAD attempts there were,
>
> because I'd assumed 3 to 4, and if so, then if that many attempts
>
> failed, I'd say the link is well beyond its capacity. Something would
>
> need to be done to remedy a link capacity problem in that case.
>
>
> I was surprised to find, as Ole mentioned, the number of attempts was
>
> only 1 rather than 3 or 4.
>
>
> I'm more than surprised. I think that's a bug and IMHO it should be fixed.
>
>
> Although it's probably true that at the time of RFC4862 we didn't
> expect networks with much higher packet loss to be so dominantly
> deployed, I don't necessarily think the current parameter of RFC4862
> is a "bug".  First off, "1" is just the default of
> DupAddrDetectTransmits, not a fixed constant.  Secondly, my
> understanding is that DAD as defined in RFC4862 (or its predecessors)
> has never been considered a very reliable duplicate detection
> mechanism, so it didn't bother to make it arbitrarily less unreliable
> by default (when 1 is may not be enough, there's no guarantee that 3
> or 4 is enough anyway).  I also thought the "official answer" for a
> high packet-loss environment is to use a more sophisticated mechanism
> such as RFC4429.
>
> (That said, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to updating the default
> value if and when we update RFC4862 so it will match the latest
> deployments for leaf networks better).
>
>
> It's a tradeoff between how long it takes before the address is usable.
>
> I wasn't aware tgat 4429 was more robust.
>
> During the efficient nd work, Erik did:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nordmark-6man-dad-approaches-02
>
> And
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues-01
>
> I think we essentially need ACD.
>
> cheers
> Ole

We could recommend to do two things in concert: use optimistic
addresses and raise DAD to 3,4,5,...