[IPv6] Thoughts on draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-15

["Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]>]

I had a chance to read through this draft with the hat of an IETF NOC member.  Given the number of wireless (and IPv6 wireless) issues we’ve seen over the years, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 really speaks to me.  We have seen issues with failing stateful proxies, incomplete learning of IPv6 addresses, and snooping holes.  These have led to extended onboarding time for IPv6-only clients and times when certain clients can pass traffic.  Things have gotten better, but it’s still a moving target.  This is a real problem, and I’m glad focus is being given to it.

While not IPv6-specific, the IETF conference network currently uses public IPv4 addresses without a firewall (to provide an “Open Internet™”), and this leads to other operational challenges that have required us to use ARP proxies to tamp down the broadcast onslaught.  Not having standards means to do some of these functions has been challenging.

Therefore, I support the spirit of this draft in that a more proactive approach to address registration and use of standardized means to do so and query the registrar would aid in overall network operation..

The concern I have is turning the AP into a BBR.  I can already hear some of the conversations in the NOC about this “layer violation”.  That said, I can imagine a case where AP suppresses the multicast over the air and redirects RS or NS requests directly to the registrar (e.g., campus router).  As you mention, the true wired side of the network is not as susceptible to the shortcomings of NBMA, so pushing this traffic out onto the wire is not such a bad thing, plus it gives less “Magick” for the AP to handle.

Joe