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

Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Tue, 07 March 2017 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
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 DCE981294C0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:01:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
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 8Z5EokLcuzPg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:01:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (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 C16701294AE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:01:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id p64so63793552qke.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:01:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=E2nzXuG2v8XFM6giOd6pf0cNBDTvFNbAk8Ohxa3jAC8=; b=jFlnQeMRjGfldtMOzRPG8TECa1Dn5RTUqSCCf3yLsX/EGbSR7b/LFPZZ6fdtAvpfO/ XEJb9VXmcO+xaoEZx9hlcWxui6oJ65TMOKouAVnZNMlnTWdL80tTB9iV0I/pVqog94ac sGFcohH2SET5FhS9LJjfl+Tt+/TfB8fsLvC18=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=E2nzXuG2v8XFM6giOd6pf0cNBDTvFNbAk8Ohxa3jAC8=; b=mgUHMQN1WmKTM7d7dNPReyMR3sdfaCwMCdIarL1xC/jeHV4mDLDKw/XF2Ubd7ZevfI 81TgzkYTel0GUT59Lb2SXMJY5GrMd+mggjcxQq2hoyK5eRowXScu2NrW73+ZhTU6ZKwB MtJXi73wVIk6LGJnX7S9DnTlZw0BHp7RhQlarIToWoh00+jSQ2pN4XB92P7av7WwBlaE 96jX6SaGl2AIcnlkzZVuuxCwSVbfubn5Rv6MpJsQF5BpD5E9FX6XNX3+/wRmiqut0MpN etqx88yTDYoXBcwNh2Ha/jSjoDClHEvPuRFUmM+T7xV+W5+86tX2pQBfArqMcYFjnkm1 iZjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l0f9X+EzGJooZeu2iPsC08Si8U6Y/GSB2Rc01SFgeuED0KiLUq65ViMTFi43YSMNjGWZ7lpRr2LPwxK2YK
X-Received: by 10.237.54.194 with SMTP id f60mr20143360qtb.123.1488844912746; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:01:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.225 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:01:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com>
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>
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:01:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145c194267417054a18b8f4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZiALgsu7FAT8Ltk5Uqf1-AhlAPo>
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-6@u-1.phicoh.com>, 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 00:01:56 -0000

Hi James and Philip,

I wanted to quickly comment on this line.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 10:47, Philip Homburg <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.

>
> Looking at the relevant source code for a couple of the latest BSD-variant
> kernels, I believe you’re right about the current behavior on those
> platforms. My memory of them must be outdated. I think they used to drop
> PIO according to a strict interpretation of RFC 4862. I distinctly remember
> having to implement it that way in order to pass a certification test. I
> believe these implementations will not any longer pass that test. (One
> imagines either their owners don’t care, or the test has been revised to be
> more lenient.)
>
> I am however looking at a commonly used lightweight IP stack that simply
> ignores all PIO options unless Prefix Length = 128 - IID Length (and it
> safely assumes all interface identifiers are length 64 because it doesn’t
> support link types with other IID lengths, and it’s also unsuitable for use
> in the environments where IETF standards make exceptions for other IID
> lengths). This stack was developed entirely apart from the Linux and KAME
> efforts, by people who read the fine RFCs and implemented the simplest
> lightest-weight thing possible that is still compliant with the
> requirements language. That’s important for people on platforms where every
> byte of code and stack space is precious.
>
> p1. I get that RFC 4862 has requirements language that annoys some
> participants. We are not here revising RFC 4862 however, so that’s not
> relevant.
>
> p2. The stack I’m using implements SLAAC and-- for completely defensible
> reasons— follows the letter of RFC 4862 requirements. Its current behavior
> is compliant with RFC 4291, RFC 4861 and RFC 4862. It’s not exactly
> uncommon in the field today, and it’s not currently broken by the proposed
> successor to RFC 4291 with its current language about IID length.
>
> p3. I get that people want to hold up promotion of IPv6 to Full Standard
> until the successor of RFC 4291 is changed to declare explicitly that the
> stack I’m using is in error. My opinion is this is a procedural matter, not
> a technical matter.
>
> I object to the procedural step being proposed, not the technical
> argument. If we MUST declare the stack I’m using to be in error, then
> please let’s NOT do it in this draft. Can you not wait until RFC 4861 and
> RFC 4862 are next revised?
>
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>


-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR