IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sun, 16 July 2017 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 C997312711E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 08:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 RIytgZ6PpHMw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 08:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D4D5124D68 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 08:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v6GFJS88077732 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:19:28 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <596B83FF.1080304@foobar.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:19:27 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.15 (Macintosh/20170609)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
CC: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <40d757eb97564bc8bb0511063bd9d3f4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com> <c7b140bf69104cd3877a7da03fbf17e7@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <32924d19-e5ce-7606-77f4-925b682065f5@gmail.com> <745583ab45bb407a9a210020a96773c5@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1dVbRc-0000GQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b6da9e67-1f4e-8900-5a3b-575d0c6fd2fd@gmail.com> <m1dWNIL-0000FpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <3d2f1182-ec 19-959e-a63f-ad0d316bbacf@gmail.com> <BBC09C3B-BBA7-4B40-A44C-D6D7FB306314@employees.org> <596A8A5 2.9030108@foobar.org> <FCEE7BF1-A276-4243-B9CC-FE2BDE25183C@employees.org> <596A95B7.6000408@foobar.org> <5C6E9C3 0-0217-4EEC-8A8D-F204002BE095@cisco.com> <61C67E77-3A8A-4177-B492-988017E7BC80@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <61C67E77-3A8A-4177-B492-988017E7BC80@employees.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZkO-AgEXYEnq2Pb5szBID2zQ6Q8>
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:19:40 -0000

Ole Troan wrote:
> Agree with all you're saying. 

so the assumptions of reasonable network-layer reliability have not been
implemented in 802.11 for multicast, the combination of which is now
causing protocols which depend on that reliability to break.  What a mess.

draft-mcbride-mboned-wifi-mcast-problem-statement was written up some
while back and describes some of these problems.  It would be useful to
see some progress on this.

> The pragmatic solutions from our perspective is to treat the media as a
> set of point to point links with /64 to each host. Then all these
> problems of multicast, DAD etc magically disappear. 

or virtual network segmentation using multicast->unicast replication at
the AP using some form of multicast proxy.  Neither these solutions
would work for point-to-point wifi.

All this is outside the context of rfc4291bis though.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email