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

Warren Kumari <> Thu, 09 November 2017 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F40412EC08 for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:55:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xz2KeTItYoVq for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:55:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3402212EC07 for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:55:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p75so14834818wmg.3 for <>; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:55:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=31xzCFodTtGdHYrIUaCOFzSzxaBncgpuYrk+xsGUNpU=; b=j2InxRbRB+9E6Pay0F3zsqI6A6FfDJJtooVH6NyWAqE0oSBm8d4kbrixmZmwx6I4Tg vhi5xq75jQv7QKjNMImeetIF1N1NwKbZ2pkQFk1b0+4WCGXWrzMazRuBbBasrsluD2GC NCbc3rp+r3mGwbzFbqlM/vb8/MTRqExA9lveCaXci7WRxReEKpfT5nMH6nQjmPyTGXik nFKAaK6MTye25vT4aZgJMkugLryoPkJX9eNaf7oqUYGupAb/ygxf9BVe5u3Umd+hEVpI hRe0sqHg5TdSYWghsbvDEMVk8MklniC13IdvfUbeSosP3H3Fnay2FmFYKA6d4yifO0Xi ALDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=31xzCFodTtGdHYrIUaCOFzSzxaBncgpuYrk+xsGUNpU=; b=DiGSQrLgoyOEBYpoaTdhhOA1PyOFdwnMLpDYjUDs9To2Eca0pqG0KPGrP6hUrtUkE8 dL01jRAWwWv9EpKmcFnPoTzYIVOoeLH7hF+dnCGNH8VhSdQa/4hftYFvvGq3YSEMbeiX 19BVcdU3An4lx68Z63abNJcmfrzgvc8s2ABM28fdzMUL/8eK/viOf+e2/w5I7d5Rc1x9 NZcGcufWWsZXGrm9mJ0gh861HLpVuGenYsE1lTufSK7TN163UqnqroHr/Okihh3DEZxt Yo22OXWGfsr9kb3DmBcqzoI/ZcHWhn4LGDa1BuxLy021GHpovTGCQ7tpjD1MydEYSrXL yPzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4vJk9JAbjrqwrSpeRcfzgr1R9HsVSjpyD3bKiDiYYVTVT9jArF L97Gps7ykTHuWvDCCQ8AqEsvIZazF953lWdoIDlnZg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SANt7TqXtKiZbwciZhxk7JQXWtarBTENXeZ2K3lWzrWL05EmeeMvM1MSmN/okQ5Jp8VQ4uZR3GRV5DuwMUj6M=
X-Received: by with SMTP id a132mr2287107wma.124.1510210539357; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:55:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:54:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:54:58 +0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 06:55:43 -0000

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<> wrote:
> On 09/11/2017 16:02, Erik Kline wrote:
>> I don't think we should be recommending unique RAs per device where
>> the devices are all on a shared link.
> Why not? Where's the harm? As pointed out at
> it's permissible under RFC 4861. This is not an innovation.
>> My understanding was that in the original motivating wifi deployment
>> every node is effectively isolated in its own (pseudo)VLAN, and
>> node-to-node traffic must be routed through the infrastructure (to the
>> extent such a thing can actually be enforced in a medium like wifi).
> It can also be enforced on a switched LAN if the switch does the requisite
> peeking. We may not be happy at such layer violations, but it seems
> to me that the days of true broadcast LANs are numbered and a lot of
> these things will need to be rethought in the coming years.
> Just a reminder, this draft was approved by the IESG a while ago
> and is in state "RFC Ed Queue : AUTH48 for 23 days". This unique
> unicast has been in there for a long time, although the phrasing
> was clarified in the last couple of months, which is what WG
> and IETF Last Calls are for.

... and in the interest of transparency -- the document was all
approved on Nov 6th; on Nov 7th Fernando sent the above mail (and also
separate mail to myself, saying that this was violating v6ops charter
and needed to have been done in 6MAN).

As soon as I saw this mail I asked the RFC Editor to hold publication
(if not too late) so I could talk to Suresh about this. The RFC Editor
has removed my approval (for now). I CCed Suresh, but as I'm already
in Singapore (and have been somewhat busy with NOC stuff) we haven't
had much time to chat (other than that we don't think it is a protocol
change, and was fine in V6OPS).

I'm planning on chatting with Suresh when he arrives (just to double
check), but I think that will be fine.

>    Brian
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.