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

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 00:25 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 A195F12941C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:25:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 R_dEg3jaiq-R for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:25:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (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 E105612946D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 25so72040685pgy.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:25:34 -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=aP4hC9J6REDGC0Zto7SOj0X8mEf4txIDYsZeYVHSESg=; b=ARLiMy3ge3afRyFoTO4M6DozPV6wx493+KpvdLpOcG9MfyyD79GmzcvvrcTxLLbMN+ ebkkQ5wc5lBZN5+87uptB+EEiuN4NZxsWHQTHmvgqqNPSeAIQNQ2V5LpUYxjuMEdwBTy Yd9IQM/O+agXZthsLZqDxLOgLa9W6rPpBJZO8mmTQxzEsTGeBRBMKc44mgLKJMb4joiX UsZZa2JckKjK2dQ0kOVJIz5DHlks3oOnn8SULmu8W1M25aiqYvUlidSL2n2MIb12m/kE Yw0CT8M/Kl6OudCoCSTs9NmGlKl+AF3PGeVfGVvmNSz9meD+MPJxXpF6B8H63Iwf4KI1 EHEA==
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=aP4hC9J6REDGC0Zto7SOj0X8mEf4txIDYsZeYVHSESg=; b=RFmx+fPNrmPwy/T/pz8f4wCNR8eYuJQWc2a7v/vSGwF3q22V09IPJYoIXfDFU7ul54 76jTASxE9dtMsr0jhEzvs1S58bHbneX8885zp1h9SU/9XcX8/y1pg5HTFzkGXrr6hKiP 35lmpsn/RaBumMqZz6GjM1DOutjGYK1RTL4Vh7OYxfd7HU2+CQuJFfgf80+LTnYgarSy YI35mqxR+X8eKuL0NPavxk4/feO5mLqAgF+qlt4y5361GHo5W5uYXZv4xxdBgrRBpJvP M/fUSJd7QjV3a4j/MWHJ2NNASlJzKI5LhfIY4cd2YIWc14PtreqQqhkNpIvgdNoUR5ew 5wPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mEN88sP2bLSgfHhhu4CU5+jy8gBLIND/NMqWIFuRb6XTK+FVtLZBpX+J5UGfoYKr6J
X-Received: by 10.84.140.131 with SMTP id 3mr30578310plt.151.1488846334205; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c11sm41705699pfe.68.2017.03.06.16.25.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:25:33 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E499961-403A-41A4-8FB1-4D28B16405FF"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:25:31 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XhJJJR2zGIBAyta3BvTYmQO9s30>
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 00:25:36 -0000

On Mar 6, 2017, at 16:01, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>; wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2017, at 10:47, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-6@u-1.phicoh.com <mailto:pch-v6ops-6@u-1.phicoh.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Finally, the 'MUST drop' interpetation is not consistent with the
>> behavior of FreeBSD, MacOS, and Linux. So I now start to wonder where
>> the 'MUST drop' interpretation comes from and if anyone ever bothered
>> to check out the behavior of existing stacks.
> 
> Yes,  IPv6 Ready Logo and USGv6 Test Programs confirm that stacks process PIO with a length larger then 64 bits for on-link determination.   This works with most IPv6 stacks today.

Hmm. I seriously remember failing that test in the other direction: accepting the prefix when it was supposed to be ignored. Maybe I’m mistaken.

In any case, my opinion is that the IPv6 Ready Logo test and the USGv6 test would be imposing a stricter test than called for by the requirement language in RFC 4862 if it requires on-link determination to succeed on PIO with an invalid Prefix Length for the link type, and it’s a test for a feature that some constrained host implementations don’t currently implement.

Those stacks (like the one I’m using now) that would fail the IPv6 Ready Logo and USGv6 tests are still compliant with RFC 4862, and I think the successor to RFC 4291 shouldn’t declare them broken.

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