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

Erik Kline <> Thu, 09 November 2017 05:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E53D120726 for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:14:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 tfxlFC5NZMJM for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9017812711D for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y75so4342005ywg.0 for <>; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:14:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UIZHJfNl3l1JPjxB63yuvgyNNbgJidD1h4jtqauF2DQ=; b=XPR29A9hcIbm8QOUr8KWzyFUQlGVNOPjsvAxwkA02oEVpkwCceWH7nyGPZlPALyByw 1O2U0HizKqylA0/vTPsxTn6MMxX7tdn/VifpYG2R120ZuCac8M5nDNpbV+sb7xmvhN0R t5MgBpDyccZY4/RZ5NywCwgq5WEjakQ9lRYN9NV3x4rQUxT8pELfMgLRhfJP99Unyqfz wE1SmZnK6vuk5HKsDdIuipg4oh+PBWsd/zoIIa1nW0rxLjxWaBrfn1/0jTzMp+VnwlgT SUhG+DzXLb9yf2rmjqE+613PznjUzlCDbOswAbVOe3leUaYxU6TDIbgWTpSRAU2HDDWi j4IQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UIZHJfNl3l1JPjxB63yuvgyNNbgJidD1h4jtqauF2DQ=; b=MbJcWvX53Mn6zIdUFaCBhm4O9yXQlf6uux91k0A1RF6HXhmqIG6lF6wDWiBUdR9dF7 tgoUi6mkzhRsHnYPxS3JwfrIDAA+o2PwTMsjSVhRyi4fKV0gNxHrlnBP0aLvREiz56F0 gVbbYFhqkCVNyl/NmIXQTOr6Jnn3SoVJF5xlEp86YpLlkcGuMvvnT+2m6jS8W+JZWQmD 1tjFtx0fDyFvEtXhM5kUhd0yvwK8vNwIrKgDZbDl7dqrkR5JV2D/0/4tnS3j/OLtIxfg oFGxvU0Gvv17KHlhXSZkxWfGAfhsUHfTZGt294vH6SYmqOApzeTssZN7WIxAxz/DHtML m5dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5H8N8ZXCAQEV6PUhAzRjLBz6/JnkESD5Ew0bl3WBOtkyGsKlHc MKEie7psuILdeBUS5+q9PwWuMMF9WUdUxPwZH02FYA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Sp5TlzDkoyyoARr16DolBe5al5ZzlsTs/1iGOK3K2VNeC7yJzB4+se6q4Q1ejpiAzyiKjz2ITMTUspvAFeJig=
X-Received: by with SMTP id a11mr1747991ybk.460.1510204483200; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:14:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:14:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Erik Kline <>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:14:22 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="f403043deec8cb73b8055d85e119"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 05:14:46 -0000

On 9 November 2017 at 12:53, Brian E Carpenter
<> wrote:
> On 09/11/2017 16:02, Erik Kline wrote:
>> I don't think we should be recommending unique RAs per device where
>> the devices are all on a shared link.
> Why not? Where's the harm? As pointed out at
> it's permissible under RFC 4861. This is not an innovation.
>> My understanding was that in the original motivating wifi deployment
>> every node is effectively isolated in its own (pseudo)VLAN, and
>> node-to-node traffic must be routed through the infrastructure (to the
>> extent such a thing can actually be enforced in a medium like wifi).
> It can also be enforced on a switched LAN if the switch does the requisite
> peeking. We may not be happy at such layer violations, but it seems
> to me that the days of true broadcast LANs are numbered and a lot of
> these things will need to be rethought in the coming years.
> Just a reminder, this draft was approved by the IESG a while ago
> and is in state "RFC Ed Queue : AUTH48 for 23 days". This unique
> unicast has been in there for a long time, although the phrasing
> was clarified in the last couple of months, which is what WG
> and IETF Last Calls are for.
>    Brian

I understand.  If implemented correctly, it will of course work.

But I think the probably of configuration errors will in practice go
way up if the medium is shared, rather than isolated.  That's all I
really meant to say.

Thanks for helping me clarify.