On sending SLAAC information into split RAs

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 09 March 2020 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 7BEF43A1243 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 W0kHT35VBObk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 623843A1248 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16E4280287; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:22:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: On sending SLAAC information into split RAs
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <7605befb-1d49-50d0-c8af-e1fb0f1af171@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 14:22:30 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/WbwqOFaUDTkucfavdVFTknVKtCk>
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: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 17:22:41 -0000

Folks,

A related issue was raised 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EFQKtYNNLI_L7vLq217aSXX-LUM/) 
in the context of draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum, but I felt like 
discussing the topic in its own thread.

SLAAC routers could, in theory, split the information to be conveyed in 
RAs into multiple RA packets.

IMO, not only I'd be curious about such an implementation approach 
(haven't seen found one so far), but I also believe that:

* it would unnecessarily increase multicast traffic
* it increases the chances of configuration inconsistencies


So, in that light, I'm wondering the wg thoughts on the topic. Namely, 
whether:

1) While theoretically allowed, this doesn't have practical implications 
because all infoarmation is always sent in the smallest possible number 
of packets

2) We may want to be explicit about it, and recommend SLAAC routers that 
SLAAC information should be conveyed in the smallest possible number of 
packets (e.g. one packet if you can fit all the information in one)

Thoughts?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492