IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Tue, 07 March 2017 00:34 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 988E8129532 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:34:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 szIUgxXInVsn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (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 1CC7912941C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 1so183250173qkl.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:34:45 -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=808AdRTJFOtR3F59w8PdhHw86ijDiwjCXQPEa+i2veM=; b=AH4RwMToV/Ay+7jI7TgfUVuZSTKMJmPAMrygie/+JcYbK9Cvx8buyQz1XcPJNziGA1 zsp8cBSk9jkxhP4d327ju9lVINbupGXR+r+9utwySWZAATqSh+VwAfWv31LhcSqA4SkK Ug7ttIz0B37eZxE6eD3uNIjlQMayGqqT82xTA=
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=808AdRTJFOtR3F59w8PdhHw86ijDiwjCXQPEa+i2veM=; b=PP0tI8XuK4WEBdCOeLKmq40qhP4DQTwfaIChlCypngxP8RK6b23Y1cNk4szhTaIZTd 1nnwajeP7P6bRB4NLe/mlCh19Dq9GopzueSA8c9N3eXThIGIWFazaq3TxjId9qujPN8H MYPxAQTQcMohPyWm3boAKx+IxlFHOpv73EIX3plRAtNrZH/EuUfChTkLBkwCVL36hJIC 01UjS30vj5FadqSChLjQnXEgRGWwRPwZbI++6B8gkD1AEzSuhfat95Nk8ez+Dv9AmSsH tSao54GsQRYdOGWSXIL9aXuGF08dzd/L10zJEx7Ka9gsRQtZUci6fzBVnXKG9B5gbSU9 MpgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ls7FnfOS3CO7DDehCagg1X4HsQE7mus0VT0aMBFo/5ob0qEgDCXTj9KQd87KCZWFzLcoBAvEjw6StiA32q
X-Received: by 10.200.45.57 with SMTP id n54mr19552902qta.212.1488846884230; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:34:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.225 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:34:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@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> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com>
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:34:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@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="001a1142aca4a8fa89054a192d82"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_dII9tcNPQ4F-o-Gh5tuBStdieo>
Cc: 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 00:34:47 -0000

Hi James,

I don't believe this test is too strict based on 4862 Section 6.3.4 "
Similarly,

   [ADDRCONF <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#ref-ADDRCONF>] may
impose certain restrictions on the prefix length for
   address configuration purposes.  Therefore, the prefix might be
   rejected by [ADDRCONF
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#ref-ADDRCONF>] implementation in
the host.  However, the

   prefix length is still valid for on-link determination when combined

   with other flags in the prefix option."


Basically ND still works even if SLAAC thinks the prefix length is
invalid.   It's really a ND test for on-link deteremination.


~Tim


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:25 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 16:01, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Hmm. I seriously remember failing that test in the other direction:
> accepting the prefix when it was supposed to be ignored. Maybe I’m mistaken.
>
> In any case, my opinion is that the IPv6 Ready Logo test and the USGv6
> test would be imposing a stricter test than called for by the requirement
> language in RFC 4862 if it requires on-link determination to succeed on PIO
> with an invalid Prefix Length for the link type, and it’s a test for a
> feature that some constrained host implementations don’t currently
> implement.
>
> Those stacks (like the one I’m using now) that would fail the IPv6 Ready
> Logo and USGv6 tests are still compliant with RFC 4862, and I think the
> successor to RFC 4291 shouldn’t declare them broken.
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email