Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 D6371127B73; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:59:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cfQtUQRMtuid; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:59:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 310981293EC; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:8016:582c:2bf0:48c4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:8016:582c:2bf0:48c4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C337803CA; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 03:59:32 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <e7ec4633-8d45-1cff-ce37-48dafd488e13@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:00:56 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZLqpVIj7tl3l9eoHvGlBBF1K-Ms>
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:59:39 -0000

On 11/13/2017 10:42 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>>> <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    FWIW, I would agree with that if this were an issue of WG focus creep.
>>>    AFAICT, the issue appears to go much deeper, which means it's an Area
>>>    boundary issue if it is indeed a protocol extension.
>>>
>>>    IMO, OPS stays in the lane of suggesting sets of *existing* protocol
>>>    parameters and features, or indicates where MAYs and SHOULDs can be
>>>    relaxed (or not) - all of this remains compliant with the protocol.
>>>    Changes to the protocol should not be considered operational decisions,
>>>    again IMO.
>>>
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but I really cannot fathom why we are saying that this draft
>>> defines a new protocol
>>
>> Model SLAAC with a FSM for the client, and a FSM for the server. Now
>> apply this document. And look at the SLAAC router FSM.
>>
>> Did it change (and quite a lot, actually)?  If yes, then you ahve
>> changed the protocol. If not, you didn't do the FSM properly.
> 
> Or do as I do in my implementation.
> Model each host as being on it's own point to point interface.
> Configure the IPv6 prefix on that interface. That configured state is exactly like what we have in classic SLAAC.

The I assume that, in that case, you don't need to do anything fancy
with how you send the multicasted RAs, and the SLAAC router
implementation need not keep a table of bindings?

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