RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Mon, 26 September 2022 08:14 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 17DDEC152562 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 01:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 RXIjWNyY-zO9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 01:14:12 -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 80C65C1524DC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 01:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Mbb8B1pHtz689SB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:12:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml100002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.75) by fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) 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 10:14:09 +0200
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml100002.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.75) 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 11:14:08 +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 11:14:08 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, "buraglio@es.net" <buraglio@es.net>
Subject: RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
Thread-Topic: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
Thread-Index: AQHY0FWzi1mPXFg/Y0GQt/hCVGqTN63vCqkAgAJPeICAAAOl0A==
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 08:14:08 +0000
Message-ID: <c7d2fda9609a4f8eac98ba4981f6b6a0@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-c8b0-247c3b4e32ef@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2WYS+YRurK3bK+4xraT7iX5Zn6165Njh6BA47hSC4qhQ@mail.gmail.com>
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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c7d2fda9609a4f8eac98ba4981f6b6a0huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aazdiK3saeC6WtrHgpPHKYkgAy4>
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 08:14:15 -0000
Let’s assume that all ULA labels are the same (for /7 or /64) – it is possible to provision. Then next rule 6 (DA precedence) would prioritize ULA_DA (derived from /7) below IPv4. ULA-specific prefixes (/64) look like not possible to fix. They would stay below IPv4. /48 looks minimum for ULA to work. Ed/ From: Vasilenko Eduard Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:01 AM To: 'David Farmer' <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>; Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>; David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>; buraglio@es.net Subject: RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] > I’ve been thinking that either a PIO or a RIO from within fc00::/7 should trigger an entry in the table. If the prefix in the PIO or RIO is longer than /48, the covering /48 should be added to the table. Otherwise, if the prefix is /48 or shorter the prefix should be added to the table as-is. In most case unless a PIO is a /64 it will likely have L=0 and A=0. Adding more specific prefixes (for example /64) would not work for the “label” reason. It would still keep ULA priority below IPv4. Even IPv4_DA/IPv4_SA would be preferred over ULA_DA/ULA_SA because ULA_DA would have a different label than ULA_SA. Prove: Rule 5 section 6 RFC 6724. Ed/ From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 2:39 AM To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>; David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu<mailto:farmer@umn.edu>>; Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com<mailto:vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>>; buraglio@es.net<mailto:buraglio@es.net> Subject: Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 15:38 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote: Just focusing on the corner case: On 25-Sep-22 07:47, Nick Buraglio wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 8:12 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>> wrote: ... > But there is still a corner case: if two networks using ULAs are > merged, and the necessary routes are installed, the individual > hosts would still need manual intervention. A high precedence for > fc00::/7 would avoid that. > > > At least to me at this time it seems that although this use case is real, it should just be noted as an edge case that is out of scope. I think we need to say a little more, since the network merge case was one of the original motivations for ULAs in the first place (otherwise, statistical uniqueness has no real value). At least, we need to say that in the case of a network merge, human intervention to configure ULA precedence will be needed. I still find that unsatisfactory, since the idea was always that unplanned merges might happen (in unmanaged networks, not in enterprise networks). If we decide to leave that unsolved, I think we'll be back to this problem later. 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. (Credit where credit is due: Ted Lemon suggested this.) I’ve been thinking that either a PIO or a RIO from within fc00::/7 should trigger an entry in the table. If the prefix in the PIO or RIO is longer than /48, the covering /48 should be added to the table. Otherwise, if the prefix is /48 or shorter the prefix should be added to the table as-is. In most case unless a PIO is a /64 it will likely have L=0 and A=0. While probably not recommended, it would be possible for a network operator to signal the entire ULA range as being local, using a PIO for fc00::/7 with L=0 and A=0, for example. Finally, there should probably be a short discussion of managing the table, such as removing an entry when the PIO is no longer valid and similarly for a RIO. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
- RFC6724-bis? Tim Chown
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Tim Chown
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Bob Hinden
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Mark Smith
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Mark Smith
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Nick Buraglio
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Mark Smith
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ted Lemon
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Mark Smith
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Timothy Winters
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Nick Buraglio
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson