RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 20 September 2017 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 0C1B6134213 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 fXsmjy76cmYB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (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 7BAA0134212 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v8KLBXOo048317; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:11:33 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.213]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v8KLBQAY048256 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:11:26 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eed5::8988:eed5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:11:25 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:11:25 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
CC: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS/vWZz4CRyQUZXk66qsY4QNXMZaK82JDAgAF89YD//+mu8IAAeXIA//+SsvCAAJsqAP//kUHQAAUTJ10AATGbEA==
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:11:25 +0000
Message-ID: <a88ad2ac387d4d189e893f7bc8531125@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <149909644776.22718.16227939850699261560@ietfa.amsl.com> <fef7bb88-1ebd-bba6-219a-dbc810f0a1b8@gmail.com> <CAOSSMjXDqWm_EvZqmCACoTESZpj-vMywkL8GqByYnC=DFKAa8Q@mail.gmail.com> <5a4d61e7-9ca4-b741-ddf3-2e3d3714d55c@gmail.com> <596CA8F9.6090806@foobar.org> <fef776d1cc3c4854a7e9cf1d1851e165@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <908A44DC-D32F-4A06-9B65-D9B497A9E3C9@jisc.ac.uk> <2065f43f2b10419981b4d527d0f5e281@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAOSSMjURSuSMajzNxTFSA8+TKp3NKyLDDJjBXAe=g5cCgTL_tA@mail.gmail.com> <4c02155867b7433790dba442a9460cc0@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <8998DDAA-4ECF-499C-902F-582B2657C47C@gmail.com> <68f8bb19ac064b89ac0d10cd5056eb84@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ea810ec11cd44ea0ac1f505fdea76553@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <34936f48-ddd9-0b1e-d7fb-ad13b69e2f12@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <34936f48-ddd9-0b1e-d7fb-ad13b69e2f12@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Yy2lu3AuoxyQCs2JlkYiViu6A-k>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:11:36 -0000

Hi Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:29 PM
> To: Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>; Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-01.txt
> 
> On 21/09/2017 06:42, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
> >
> >> I hear you, and I am not suggesting any change in the host and
> >> router definitions. However, an end system that acts as both a
> >> router and a host has to do something slightly different than
> >> an ordinary router would.
> >
> > This is the typical case for any "dual-homed host," in my experience. An end system connected redundantly, for
> reliability/survivability reasons. They are routers, but configured to not forward packets and not announce routes (e.g. using RIP or
> OSPF). Very common in some environments, and frequently problematic.
> >
> >> Whether/not you agree that the term "end system" should be
> >> used to describe these, I still see value in importing the
> >> weak/strong ES discussion from RFC1122 because the same
> >> concepts apply to IPv6.
> 
> Not exactly. We discuss this a bit in RFC 8028, specifically
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8028#section-1.1 , and there
> are some subtle differences.

I don't mind citing the strong/weak discussion in RFC8028, and I think
node requirements would do well to discuss the host model. However:

> Personally I would prefer that we don't add dependencies on IPv4
> documents. We might want to make all of those Historic in a few years.

I would still like to see node requirements cite RFC1122, if even as just
historical.

Thanks - Fred

> > I think this issue also relates to what an IP address refers to. I'm under the impression that in IPv6, we insist this must be the address
> of an interface, rather than a host. In IPv4, it's more ambiguous, which is also problematic (IMO). If we insist that IPv6 addresses
> belong to interfaces, then the weak model would not apply to IPv6, no?
> 
> Again, see RFC 8028.
> 
> >
> > (This is also similar to MAC addresses, whether they should apply to a host or to an interface. A debate from a previous era.)
> 
> But it doesn't really matter for IPv6. As long as the MAC address is unique
> on each link, everything works.
> 
>     Brian