Re: Linux & draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 25 March 2015 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7A71A9151 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 vZRgzZOrH74O for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FBCC1A9026 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cl-1071.udi-01.br.sixxs.net ([2001:1291:200:42e::2]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1YapXz-0004S2-BN; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:56:55 +0100
Message-ID: <5512F64B.50805@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:54:19 -0500
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux & draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues
References: <55102C6B.1060608@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2XfeSuQAj94kN1AF_8cet2L+uEkJnO59NyYgtwyfXu7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3YBdjSkwgoAzTXs_dvoiRnSFReE5-fAO7RggvVLwDthw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BASXNe6TXWt7R2+tBjiob8n23VpBV5THV5hJxSHV-wKo5A@mail.gmail.com> <55118F3B.3000308@si6networks.com> <CAFU7BAQX95WmBu1r=yp38pZ3tEBrxdEX32cvHE7A8AkLjESSEA@mail.gmail.com> <5511EF4C.1050908@si6networks.com> <CAFU7BASTCrPrz+KT-45R5ojL1PVBPu4zFBnnbEJZ10vVW96btA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASTCrPrz+KT-45R5ojL1PVBPu4zFBnnbEJZ10vVW96btA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XT0AD50Qq4GjoW9sPYjYolzZ9AU>
Cc: draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues@tools.ietf.org, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:57:01 -0000

Hi, Jen,

On 03/25/2015 06:46 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>> On 03/24/2015 12:24 PM, Jen Linkova wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>>>> I agree that "<= 2x MaxRtrAdvInterval" limitation is way too strict
>>>>> and we SHOULD fix this.
>>
>> It is not a network misconfiguration. It's a bug in the spec.
> 
> Again, I totally agree that the lifetime value probably should not be
> limited to 2x MaxRtrAdvInterval
> and it should be fixed. However I strongly object updating RFC6106 with
> 'The default value of AdvRDNSSLifetime and AdvDNSSLLifetime MUST be at
> least 10*MaxRtrAdvInterval'.
> I think we shall remove "<2x MaxRtrAdvInterval" limitation in 6106, that's it.

Fair enough. Although there are two issues here:

1) Allowed bounds
2) Default value


For #1, removing the upper bound is good enough. But there's still #2.


> Bounding it to "> 10x MaxRtrAdvInterval" seems to be unnecessary overkill.
> 
> BTW most of the router implementations I've seen do allow specifying
> lifetime values > 2MaxRtrAdvInterval, so I do believe that in many
> cases the problem you are describing could be solved by properly
> configuring routers.

Yes. Thing here is that we should have:

1) Sane defaults
2) The spec should allow for configuring sane Lifetime values


>>> And yes, it might be equal to Router Lifetime, which might be
>>> significantly lower than 6000 sec (1 hr 40 mins) you are proposing.
>>
>> I think that the specific value that we use is the low-order bit (I can
>> certainly live with 6000 sec). The high order bit is that there is a
>> problem to be fixed.
> 
> I want be able to configure machines with lifetime much lower than
> 6000 secs, that's my problem with this draft.

Fair enough. But the *default* value should be something that actually
works, even if you don't know what you're doing.

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