Re: 64share v2 Wed, 11 November 2020 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418FE3A0F0F for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:53:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09hED6nG-2mf for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:53:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AF253A0F0E for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E11B34E11B59; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:53:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FD043C728E; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:53:11 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: 64share v2
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:53:11 +0100
Cc: Ca By <>, 6man WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:53:15 -0000

Hi Lorenzo,

>  - the PIO is used for prefix discovery on the directly connected link, a different option
>    "delegated prefix option" should be created. A principle of good protocol design is to be explicit
> +1. We can't just change the length of the PIO from 64 to 60, since this is really not the same as a PIO. A PIO specifies "the prefixes that are on-link and/or are used for stateless address autoconfiguration". Here, the prefixes are not on-link, and any non-/64 PIO can't be used for autoconf anyway, because for global addresses, IIDs are 64 bits long. If we just change the PIO from /64 to /60, IPv6 on existing mobile devices will just stop working. Also, the A and L bits in the PIO are meaningless. If the network is delegating a /60 prefix to a mobile device, it makes no sense to say "you can have this entire /60 but nothing in it can use autoconf", or even "you can have this /60 and autoconf is available on it".
>  - ND has been designed to be datalink type agnostic. This mechanism should not assume a 3GPP link.
>    Needs text to state that this new option requires per client messaging or an underlaying p2p link.
> +1
>  - Unsure if you need some way for the client to refresh or request a delegation.
> Personally I don't think we need a way to do this. For the problem at hand, the semantics of RAs are fine, it's the semantics of the PIO that don't meet the needs.
>  - You need to clarify host/router behaviour in that you now make the RS/RA behaviour between routers.
> Not sure that necessarily needs to be added here. After all, we published RFC 7278 without it, and the problem is basically the same. And RFC 6204/7084 (IPv6 CE routers) already expects such routers to listen to RAs.
>  - You should require a mechanism for the CE to verify forwarding state in the PE. We missed that in 3315.
> I don't think this is a problem in mobile networks. Certainly, I don't think we currently have anything along these lines for IPv4 addresses or IPv6 /64s.

Right, you do get a very clear L2 event on mobile networks.
If we want to make this general it might be needed in other networks.
I thought it might be something to consider, given how many problems we've seen in broadband deployments, where the PE does DHCPv6 PD snooping as a relay, and seems to forget state. And unless the CE actively probes there's no way to recover.

> Instead, I think we should say that the prefix MUST be a superset of a prefix that already has a PIO with A=1. That would make failure modes very clear.

Implied exclude option. Yeah.