IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Mon, 26 September 2022 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 7C217C14CE24 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 04:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OIEjyMKRWWsb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 04:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED038C14F732 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 04:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Mbg9J5ffQz688nD; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:13:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml100001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.227) by fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:14:35 +0200
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml100001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:14:35 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.031; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:14:35 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
Thread-Topic: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
Thread-Index: AQHY0FWzi1mPXFg/Y0GQt/hCVGqTN63wdgWAgADrAlD///YugIAAOJuQ
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 11:14:35 +0000
Message-ID: <56a897a426084f9381abaf770f1ea35e@huawei.com>
References: <66892DC8-6DA4-4DC8-85B0-E1E1647CD9F7@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=xR_2Xw+1KL6vbzZ69N+vonhcTNvO=DBceeApfoS2bMQ@mail.gmail.com> <e76267b6101146cf8a1bd6fa567c6b77@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau2QO5sxevJwUbOj+_wyiCdOjnPEZM14Jhevvkq4YZqU7Q@mail.gmail.com> <bc85e623-ef89-d2e2-4e33-b8ce0a4ec343@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0Wbki6xwcEdy8ZK-pO9jeT6+8TKZgbmXWUgnkR+dRhBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=OmC+HNVGWbgj9JtGbpcuzKOgjZ1KXJm5mXgpji-G4Mw@mail.gmail.com> <6edcc5d8-edf1-51de-103c-a4ac6060fef6@gmail.com> <29689d645d22409b962f6c361d71e098@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau3rwi4X4NqLbHMmPQQ=i7y23Kz70JK09ggsXSxkJfT5xA@mail.gmail.com> <bf7c7d74cc7744ef8ded7d043ceb3e5e@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau0=LD9MTYKJQoSw=b9S25nmrNuqRSyLdsztFZscG8ZbUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kjOWh8R70pNO0eH9EJUH-v6HyxGMqxpy0N2hydHN33LQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5+tA9mqjrtq3pTggv1pA4fOYXUODkZHy74vs8cffVOrBefbQ@mail.gmail.com> <0b6886d3-5ea9-0a1d-8b16-4e17daeb6924@gmail.com> <CAM5+tA9dAjh0MTRG3922xTe3_aChHFa9AYCFCGmt395KwuvBYA@mail.gmail.com> <cd26ae80-2569-6134-c8b0-247c3b 4e32ef@gmail.com> <395554.1664189125@dooku>
In-Reply-To: <395554.1664189125@dooku>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.211.207]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Z1rQ3Zau5tnxA-l7YXuvNvkkSQo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 26 Sep 2022 11:14:41 -0000

>    > But how remote ULA prefix would be known to the local router?  If
>It can't, which is fine.
>If there are multiple ULAs after a merger, then we do what Brian and David described and send RIOs or PIOs.

It is evident that A=0 is for something non-local.
It would be especially needed if /64 would be put into the SASA policy table (then the remote prefix would be /64 too).
It may be needed for different /48 after the company merge.

How to know what to put in this special PIO (A=L=0)? It looks like not automated at all.

Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca] 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 1:45 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]


Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
    >> Now as to how to fix this without a global precedence for ULAs, I am
    >> wondering about a PIO with L=0 and A=0 (exactly as recommended in RFC
    >> 8028, but for other reasons). If a host sees such a PIO for a ULA
    >> prefix, it could serve as a signal that the prefix is to be given a
    >> suitable precedence, even though it is not on-link and not used for
    >> SLAAC.

    >> I really like this.  I think it is the best solution.

    > But how remote ULA prefix would be known to the local router?  If

It can't, which is fine.

If there are multiple ULAs after a merger, then we do what Brian and David described and send RIOs or PIOs.

    > proper routing is in place then no problem exists in the first place,
    > the whole FC/7 could be prioritized.

I don't think that non-local ULAs *should* be prioritized.
I think that it's actually a problem as more and more sites use ULA for significant internal things, and those addresses leak into other sites.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email