Re: 64share v2

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 12 November 2020 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 B25AC3A150A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:48:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.67
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 RpRcW8fJEoBp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EC213A12DC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0AC8mOd5028957 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:48:24 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D9FF202991 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:48:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63FC8200C34 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:48:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0AC8mOsE008421 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:48:24 +0100
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <43ebd660-3df6-bc9c-2ef3-bbfd72a64229@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQRyDDhVtunyCrWDBABG576oi=5xd1Lmz5=QicOJ6YsNA@mail.gmail.com> <d591a034-b629-cf6a-8211-b9243528db79@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQaMCS+T-6pV=c7M_DL=qCYSdqrsemE8vUYYyqm5Rv32A@mail.gmail.com> <9dd54921-372f-f029-41ec-8eb00c12158f@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr05C_rbzigG8H3TbF3NkGg6oj7L4+LVtASdVmpdZ2Aaeg@mail.gmail.com> <15d69b19-9e6f-ff4e-70d7-025af8d33590@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <76ea85b7-c7c9-6ee9-f5f8-039fb8171951@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:48:25 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <15d69b19-9e6f-ff4e-70d7-025af8d33590@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RB0FgU6hihJhMw61v-0xKP9QEyQ>
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 08:48:29 -0000


Le 11/11/2020 à 21:21, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 11-Nov-20 22:31, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 9:01 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         This memo requests the 3GPP to change this requirement to allow any
>>         prefix size less than or equal to 64 be advertised by the 3GPP
>>         gateway RA. It also, for this purpose only, overrides the implication
>>         of [RFC 4291] and [RFC 4861] that subnet prefixes in RAs are
>>         always /64.
>>
>>
>> I think that if we want to gain consensus on this document, we should avoid overriding/updating/touching RFC 4291.
> 
> I disagree. The reality is that 3GPP has already overridden the intention
> of RFC4861 by misusing an RA/PIO as a prefix delegation mechanism. That's
> a clever trick, but it is a trick, and Cameron's proposal simply extends
> that trick a bit.

It is a trick indeed, but I think it happened unintentionally.  They 
exploited the fortunate consequences, which is fine.  They realized that 
assigning and delegating a prefix to a point-to-point link is 
conflating, independently of their wishes.  Were that an Ethernet-like 
shared link then assigning and delegating prefixes would be distinct.

And I agree that 64share-v2 proposal extends the trick a bit, which is fine.

Alex

> 
>> Fortunately I don't think we need to. We can simply do as Ole suggested and have the RA contain both the /64 PIO and a new option conveying the delegated prefix.
> 
> You said a bad word: "new option". We should avoid that if possible.
> 
>> We need to continue to maintain the /64 PIO anyway. If we don't, otherwise existing devices won't get IPv6 connectivity, since they know that a PIO with a /60 isn't valid for autoconf (even if A=1), because for global space, IIDs are always 64 bits long.
> 
> Hmm. I'd like to know whether that's an experimental or theoretical observation.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>