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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@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 8F9CC126B6E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:01:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, SPF_PASS=-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 Ftva-KiWR3ib for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (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 9F96A1294D8 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id y15so8346414ita.4 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:58 -0800 (PST)
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=EO3jfBYbmc87G0vKD38O3ges7rSyJEsjGmBOov9lryQ=; b=CtcQP9nygnlj+JxePyNrN6T577of5tWQJJtlDywiZh8XuLc56b0PCbmlpDv0sBR9d9 9hw1IKz6OptNykpLfqzrweTWlnhlvUMPbpB2o7HRMjzF9arBHVtlsWBUcNmbA8FJoBHT Qm5Xyr4t9DRUheKjyEWdMV2eGjoGpMIBdnbMQEElgQWAEPuU36lZZpnlDIhcNB0HlbrB I6nXEkGiaWQv+DkR/bRjozTqzInlXCp682FNQynceU/oczVx16KSUcROkUqOTnFWhv8e Db0xqZ1e2gntli5yAfOcbU8ezOKI16FCzsI09l666J5fvP8AZID713wGG2UoH27dRU6A J2sw==
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=EO3jfBYbmc87G0vKD38O3ges7rSyJEsjGmBOov9lryQ=; b=IsMy3GhmGddrQP59fQ9pjyLxnEHyvmBoejiZSRR1ET6qrW9hHS9NvakvF5w8GG6uRI CidRs0Dln1ePnMSAfb9J24KmHTzUPFSonZtbu/3DET5LfuIFhOur0KanKEn5Fakr2oxS u9mz15+Q4qFVfD+S0nVP3wWNvdnyueKYpuatiCzGcRuNaA2/ap/kYXY0ei+91rqudD8V Iakto0s+v47as0MXs8e/+xfP3XtAZtvds0cTCbStG8D+GRR2boQ2PiFAERu4mOnHe0Or UDCFcrq4jL/p7MQ5ywe3n+wVM9uBFybAnp/OqnhhnIylrPmMZdnpvXlSRHH/3nUcYrRS shQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5Z4CJORFvwyT2r+KJg+mhl43KhJWUoiZphg8xFVcf3FLROGeoB DAptANgAN3EKsA70rs2p0SMEWH87/RVd/4d4bGhw7Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbBVLctqavITXSPghgqHB87/dnQ0mQCxna5cij7BTkH0gasvlp1oat8UsPvb++IU1eiinlFVdeon6YghFMn9Tk=
X-Received: by 10.36.70.76 with SMTP id j73mr9459449itb.32.1510560057493; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.82.19 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xacRco7ne7biQ93so0k-x4xSnM2jzoB13-sdVRLshQDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@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> <862687c9-c107-53a8-288a-29049097b0e1@acm.org> <AM5PR0701MB2836C00EA1AAC73E7E63F583E02B0@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAO42Z2xacRco7ne7biQ93so0k-x4xSnM2jzoB13-sdVRLshQDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:00:36 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0Zz6Jxg_ZuEbBkMhBdEaZKOrtx-eUns7KWi9v-5PDBzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144b0eca419d9055dd8ab77"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RINih4ZMtF4WBw6_iXipTlpy3n0>
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 08:01:19 -0000

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>; wrote:

> It's a fantasy that routers don't fail, or that a single router on a link
> is always enough.
>
> Host connections are supposed to survive transient failures such router
> reloads or switching to a different router that provides equivalent packet
> forwarding service. If a host loses its prefix in this scenario because of
> either of those events, then I don't think this method as currently
> described is robust against a foreseeable failure.
>
> I don't think it is a Best current practice if router redundancy hasn't
> been considered or tested and deployed, and can therefore be documented. I
> see value in the approach because of SLAAC compatibility with hosts however
> I think it is currently half baked.
>

Let me state this again:

   - DHCPv6 PD has exactly the same problem.
   - As far as I am aware there is no RFC that documents the solutions that
   are in use for DHCPv6 PD.
   - This has not stopped the deployment of tens or hundreds of millions of
   networks that use DHCPv6 PD.

Why are we holding this document up on this?