Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IPv6 certification - IPv6 Router Advertisement Lifetime 0 and Reachable time 10 seconds

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 25 January 2021 06:06 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 B7FB83A091C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:06:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.928
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.928 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.626, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 9KJoLaJIjxxO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:06:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x236.google.com (mail-oi1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (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 E46C73A0906 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x236.google.com with SMTP id h6so12273781oie.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:06:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kpaql2K+FRjyLckUf5jt+8PCuObMCRSMnR70FqS6EEQ=; b=AYfr8Q1QT8JiskCsNgavFj7478nH4eA4KJqM79NbUPo0lMYcrNoPUhTX6S50yttSoy Ppe/l20EUFOeB36iE1pO7q1OoIsaJ+Ugb6mWomTaV1GaRs35xkPc/7qCwFSf2kMn2cIf 4+KtbGSd6q0MjEQhhnIxTh8R1B5J5U7h6z6DddDGK04g2xlLkGRhdPTEocxk3GjfwTG3 YDlPAQFEqGuBm1chJnS4GG/8pdSx2Ave/IcPdy/wcM/MUv3apwkrNjIanG5+NUfkHnQd KGs6S3zzXTJGYoeOrDnD+iJ7J/BybWPqy8WDasxavTKEeVDfjmbElWOsmgXmHUAN2iMw 9NdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kpaql2K+FRjyLckUf5jt+8PCuObMCRSMnR70FqS6EEQ=; b=YvwqFUdD3KCjYBXEy7RHbghj/ZJyE7JAOkKx7Uzh7KTBJLxDyuqRw01jPo7yD7AYab eYO6Mtv97QZcb+tcHwCMuGKxOyB2EJqezrt0xj0PVprb9NK3JuuR2bc9opgFAUSEXphc eCluDf7HnaUg/T5u+vKeal9u7ViBPRGEN/JBoM4QlkbpuIq8vqEw9bqJVLLUCKcp8Z1y IGqI7eAWDZOZEri0U13hY6HDlrrrMj/0mFaRKYeW68KkPlhPrujLKOku/LI3Z7Alxc9c Rjp5nRjHVDn9XepaBPOHGO2sccZMt6hv4aAeBowbQL0RZIAXo1km/6y84+SwreGzDK6O GiOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Wdx2daPWH+euw7HHQ8rVYGU7KHHZ2XDy7P6YyInDSzErYYbv8 ijYwQnuiCNJgOD8tqqSOpb/JCo1xh5SPlXYqRSA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZgodl+nLBQiPpbG2e+5dtitKG94NJz4MqkhC55ddIFNxU4IzfUDZueNOJs3WtNzo0mYn+JfswUxEulDRgRng=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4f06:: with SMTP id e6mr277251oiy.60.1611554768172; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 22:06:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGeZV=Q=awxFd=vsfBiBC2vt7o3Wkm9ECMSi+UU90ATKmHY32Q@mail.gmail.com> <BAB67E82-9BE8-4E7A-8548-5475E93FD137@employees.org> <CAGeZV=T4B5m7RYrKL4a4peQjZAoJiUqNv7V=0iaz5VdWeSTKng@mail.gmail.com> <fd7bc4a5272f4081afddfdc1a00ad527@boeing.com> <CAGeZV=SPczCEk-FixqSM+q5KDiEQf_pdsUWkzUj7f398dSGY8A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGeZV=SPczCEk-FixqSM+q5KDiEQf_pdsUWkzUj7f398dSGY8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:05:56 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2wW1tQmKY_=DXHyLdX9XZVNn1L-SF85Fq5U4cp8xy8Bhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IPv6 certification - IPv6 Router Advertisement Lifetime 0 and Reachable time 10 seconds
To: Isaac <isaactheogaraj@gmail.com>
Cc: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007e399205b9b35522"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XCNB35z7eIciq-kmKA8I2EMIxao>
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, 25 Jan 2021 06:06:11 -0000

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, 16:40 Isaac, <isaactheogaraj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bert,
>
> In a way, yes. Do you think this combination of RA lifetime 0 and
> reachable time 10 seconds need to be mandated for all vendors?
>

Yes.

Because they're separate and unrelated parameters.

One parameter is about a router being a default router.

The other parameter is to do with the Neighbour Discovery protocol.

The only thing these parameters have in common is they're both carried in
an RA.

If you're reading a non-IETF spec that says they're tightly coupled
together parameters, where as the IETF RFCs and people in this IETF working
group say they aren't, which is wrong?




> I have a question to the IETF group here, when RA lifetime is 0 (which
> means the the router is no longer to be used as gateway by hosts) and
> prefixes are provided (prefixes have their own lifetime and flags and in
> this rare scenario there is going to be a second router acting as gateway),
> why do we need reachable time of 10 seconds for the 1st router?
>
> Thanks,
> Isaac.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:45 AM Manfredi (US), Albert E <
> albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Isaac
>>
>> > Ole/Tim Winters/IETF team,
>> >
>> > Yes, we understand these knobs but we wanted to understand more on
>> the scenario/topology. More importantly we wanted to understand the real
>> world scenario when this combination of RA lifetime 0 and reachable time 10
>> seconds is used and the technical merit of it for which we did not get
>> clear response (especially in the modern global IPv6 networks context).
>> It's surprising that the certification bodies haven't clearly mandated only
>> common/practical (although IETF has mentioned that these paramers need to
>> be configurable but never said explicitly that all permutation/combination
>> of values need to be supported. Vendors (definitely want) comply to RFCs
>> but do not want allow impractical values) use cases but have listed even
>> the corner scenario which may never be used. We understand that there are
>> thousand vendors who have implemented this combination. But we fear that
>> these are extra burden for vendors considering that vendors go ahead for
>> certification without questioning the certification body itself
>> believing that the certification body does its job of validating the modern
>> technical relevance. Ideally, we expect the certification body (if not
>> IETF) to re visit all the tests periodically to understand the relevancy as
>> time passes and modify if required (which is the purpose of the
>> certification body we believe). Sorry to have spilled certain discussions
>> pertaining to certification body in this forum. But we do not have much
>> option as we want technical answer from the IETF group. Let's not stop with
>> the high statements in RFC. The reason we approcahed IETF is to go one
>> level deep (especially in the context of modern day global networks) to
>> undertand the relevance of RA lifetime 0 and reachable time 10 seconds
>> whether it makes sense to support. These are our 2 cents contribution to
>> the community (if there is someone to listen!)
>>
>> Isaac, I'm trying to understand your point. At least one scenario in
>> which the RA lifetime is set to 0, and reachable time is set to 10 seconds,
>> was explained a couple of times. It can be used for a router to provide the
>> IPv6 prefix, for example for SLAAC, but for that same router NOT to be used
>> as the default router, for the subnet in question.
>>
>> Is it that this scenario seems unrealistic and unnecessary, to you?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bert
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>