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

Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <victor@jvknet.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 528DE1288B8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:17:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 g2BW7FljtUhm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x231.google.com (mail-ot0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::231]) (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 A328C12943D for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x231.google.com with SMTP id b17so1623596oth.2 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:17:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3tGlPhTkX9B3rtPFC9t7fj8940R0sb3myt7LqtEkCx0=; b=w/SuZt2FhZKZDpBj8Z0JJnBX1Y/JLELZQi3p2/tkM7IZIvlq1MNbxY6lJrKTGg2c27 PSV234CCLKg52A2YOmltI2yGR1v/07CUB8/Gfo1G0oYaIeV8IE766fBLpxGkVcjwl9kP Hwxw/HJUNUaEbPudUXi810U1WafHTcYg3sbBdSDDE6Ud69I5uFaygBT9/ZXlXypa5qCR N9d9SrdATtqec/dto0RfptAco4nBfmKT7cilYjstaNEJ1ZpYdfhc0maJrsb8UdEwFlxB y8v6phNMbxvrMOKDTwF6IDAmF5eXjkeUfCE2KO8aUV1LU/AyKddPSfTrrorbQcskDgbc Tbxg==
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=3tGlPhTkX9B3rtPFC9t7fj8940R0sb3myt7LqtEkCx0=; b=ErrJTQo5XIGSNP2I4fzFbGNi51QlRxM1X8VJu8jmsfkcYf1z5cI3AJ6USerGzKTZkr 9MhUt1kS6SJX7YaOFrBY9KqOiJN4nz4GoKCzu6L2MF7gGLkTnRFa7AqlYMep0iTVXX5r GgleNgPlbYwMU3/rMGp75Z4/eqOwaCUAKWzAywwXbk/cT6VVVmmidSTawmSSYzRrxdzA aUymReyjslRmIrccLErAv2iOZdpyAQdRANqXTXWTK5SKWqoG/53uT6R4IE0ADRh9H6Jn yJEZUL9R847aWJfyOWfaS78AowLrHxB0QLeKh1LFlSZAuAAOIFn/ENBxnaQJStzo2h31 6nlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX68czwZy80QJU+BZ0rJoMWjnl8gZk91I90lKg9IrlVSmJaR17q+ l8/qtSLbwXyB73mabkqRE8i1hDVf+fiCAiGadcg2lw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYB+YturM2+e8PGEuMMQvhXXzGcOYlmDrdKRNgT/hMWbELZ910zOmpHOpHMQioJLQ7qCTvrBBqQUOIdhuRL8TA=
X-Received: by 10.157.3.67 with SMTP id 61mr5704012otv.347.1510582630004; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:17:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.13.74 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:17:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a4a380b0-d69c-1c2c-fedc-0a3da2a8060a@si6networks.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <e7ec4633-8d45-1cff-ce37-48dafd488e13@si6networks.com> <BBAB48C0-384B-4380-9359-7965C7C61D58@employees.org> <4b7e8e53-ea7a-f84d-92cf-a9a113c200ce@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1NG93Jv7E6hKY4BKApwJg6uG0wAgUL74cw1Fb5VsKnUg@mail.gmail.com> <14d489ec-0b28-8fe5-e28c-35a1f4fc15de@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaPb8vOxfUVk-6sQNGpftegPCgb+j3OyGD55rmCado+VZw@mail.gmail.com> <a4a380b0-d69c-1c2c-fedc-0a3da2a8060a@si6networks.com>
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:17:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJc3aaPg=qOpiwJ29Bq92m2RfZ-VDJtLWb-GgZV7bXP6iELiRA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/hM1UBwsk_FjdIL_qWbDxFQi6tPQ>
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:17:12 -0000

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>; wrote:
> On 11/13/2017 09:35 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>; wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2017 07:14 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
>>>> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     >From a operational point of view, one would wonder why pursue this path
>>>>     as opposed to e.g. do DHCPv6
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for DHCPv6 specifically, one reason is that DHCPv6-only networks are
>>>> not recommended by the IETF. RFC 7934.
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry: I meant DHCPv6-PD.
>>>
>>> RFC7934:
>>>
>>>     Due to the drawbacks imposed by requiring explicit requests for
>>>     address space (see Section 4), it is RECOMMENDED that the network
>>>     give the host the ability to use new addresses without requiring
>>>     explicit requests.  This can be achieved either by allowing the host
>>>     to form new addresses autonomously (e.g., via SLAAC) or by providing
>>>     the host with a dedicated /64 prefix.  The prefix MAY be provided
>>>     using DHCPv6 PD, SLAAC with per-device VLANs, or any other means.
>>>
>>> Therefore, why re-invent PD in SLAAC?
>>
>> PD is quite vast, and this draft describes a specific set of use
>> cases.  It does not seem like a re-invention of PD in SLACC to me.
>
> Again: Why not use DHCPv6-PD?
>

I would leave this up to the operators to decide. They are designing
their network and know their requirements best.  I don't want to be in
a position of ignoring what operators are saying they need by
suggesting we have it all figured out here at the IETF and are telling
them how to make design decisions.

There are many factors the weigh into why operators make certain
decisions.  There are circumstances were DHCPv6-PD would be quite
valid, and others, as described in the draft, where the methods
described are desirable.  I don't think there is any one way to build
a network (I am yet to have built two that look exactly the same given
different input requirements).

regards,

Victor K