Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@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 D3A341294FB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:44:10 -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, 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 K_MpjupmC8On for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::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 748CC129467 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id o126so3817639pfb.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:44:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=I0IYRqvL9QFC5WHCOS7nMg4QFXB1O68P3mt/o32EMHU=; b=ARrdx+K9gP1XK8dZhtPIseBAEXW+TBMq1t9GK8qRhI7GUUyEg9ixkkB5sSFVoTfooW x1L5IBrIIRMJCiBDc8RCpjuzzNrE47sQhEDy6uisjWofI3gFOtNSsjdoIbpfx3q03rkm twQeaabbJtsfbnvn/9uC0LO63WC1t+qyhJ+X32zM6dK4QAaSobnI6OeAD2Q0ZMMluAT6 YNErCL7cyw191fIJdnMiT9D8HrR2IgNA3cTGGQBEf7G7l9qmX0dfmjQ0Xgfo4PTBN85Q oAGtb3mhMlAmlxH9wl9mmI0i6lixX/l+BOwbI3yv4mhnBOb09ZphGgTJI1xPYb43M8gd cxow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=I0IYRqvL9QFC5WHCOS7nMg4QFXB1O68P3mt/o32EMHU=; b=MNwbwqLN1TcT/T8liTzsVGEZ9DICG2i3vnn5W639Ap3GzAuu/XZZW55s68XY3Lb/Jr Yu7hYZYz5RDwsQaBpwe4UZCu5DN5y+71E+EnAAoentcdhLb0/cIW8X6j/wvPd5cthuHu aL9fnmXRpjCsJ6pRYYa7tiFOiQCwBqPHG/JoJ9qFJqJ8Pd0ULsnboM7VWjnwv4P8OnB1 /iGzDcVEQDXjYlqBosBraUXfdCvQzEpprXvokwlzB2f4fuve747YH/9aRX7gin3kg+zt M3aK2hJZHOnlbmBTivRtMdiLItvCPWZc6K83G5e1GvhhJIM3kuoYV8pTUEypvbRVsDJa asZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mQ1NnId2D/66fTGaNX3gHbLcJ14ODK56ZVDUznInBT92EtI+rhAKLe+Q4U1IRoW2ml
X-Received: by 10.84.178.195 with SMTP id z61mr2457923plb.139.1488912248815; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x15sm1213750pgo.56.2017.03.07.10.44.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:44:08 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B6AF15B8-A814-4D97-A81B-445BAA61AA75"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:44:07 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com> <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Vod3c5FGIz1AFIUg9NYjMmdEyoU>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:44:11 -0000

On Mar 6, 2017, at 16:34, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>; wrote:
> 
> I don't believe this test is too strict based on 4862 Section 6.3.4 "Similarly,
>    [ADDRCONF <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#ref-ADDRCONF>] may impose certain restrictions on the prefix length for
>    address configuration purposes.  Therefore, the prefix might be
>    rejected by [ADDRCONF <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#ref-ADDRCONF>] implementation in the host.  However, the
>    prefix length is still valid for on-link determination when combined
>    with other flags in the prefix option."
> 
> Basically ND still works even if SLAAC thinks the prefix length is invalid.   It's really a ND test for on-link deteremination.

I’ll run away and think about this some more, but right now I think it might still be a valid interpretation of the RFC 4862 requirement language to ignore PIO entirely if Prefix Length is not valid for the link type. If that means LwIP fails USGv6 and IPv6 Ready Logo testing, then my opinion is that it's a tussle between those certification tests and those parts of the IPv6 standards that are not actually revised by the successor to RFC 4291.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>