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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 A7087129AB6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:31:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
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, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-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 0MXZRNnsXQ7O for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x235.google.com (mail-it0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235]) (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 B8F80129744 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:31:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u132so9627069ita.0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:31:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VkOyaR2ysMN4Bmt0qECIxldAWTTu2DhcKM8+3G8T5Nc=; b=YwafoHEq6KwWS10+MPIAkzB8NHRDmA5ep3usxrjLyIdZ/5LgffoIXOAU2kZUvPg4AD Y53Wm6w1xl9bJgFndmuUXFtaIDNLvFv8rv/tc3v3V/G+Os9tsaOD9OLoXXUK6Snfnwk4 ZN718x2U126dd5EwMo0j5EYqATdpqsqVc2iPfMBGwxpEqL90zLTaAiDZxyMbtFn1UGPk /umkYULVslq+NzHQkJrjVFmaU30iOm9iHDbZKng9wyuPeGwkOScPbxQdrLPH3nn/nm+C RHBLNiNwfVTaVdEx+VLDnP9w/ziVYz7qWCQL+N5mt4Ags2K5ZF1W/cdf5rdvXzzs4Rle +Jww==
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=VkOyaR2ysMN4Bmt0qECIxldAWTTu2DhcKM8+3G8T5Nc=; b=ICp/NxE4iizgjKdCCoiSRm7muQDv5JKKOznis95BUqoHPVdSYws+anJZ9wTsU7Iczt FIjaO15+8NY33VrIHMLSi2Xb3Vqw7onpFht5MvLsc9PvgBEGhNIngaCbhdfVxTW5dh0Y ZEZMmvZt5XnnWiHkOcURlLMSEyeEH7niafdlKWPDy/Num7R+JfeKNaxbyGO4sB5iR+bt lF8S6Zi9kbLG6DpqSKfZMRyCyXzcgftHUqxF7063cxpOjkemak3IWWGYPryUAGTtyTkQ ijJUU6o04IGQVtqj5j+VpAvHBYHVoF4DaWEQXcCTBdiVafx+oXddGQETRdK0w7+L7CwA 8gVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5McgBvq4UitlaXfEXywV7Nh3BkH76W5r9VSqskHJylNZTnmEeu 275KvAzlTrJgbQwyp3skimv3w8kPBCm1sqrOQsNWQQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYEpqkRjl56wvvM3PXcPx8jp5MUd/4Fdj+u4RbIVBed6FdNIgb8/Vjg1rJYJIjOK+IytCnEZoFKbbNinyRB8XI=
X-Received: by 10.36.76.7 with SMTP id a7mr6062677itb.35.1510583478951; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:31:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.15.203 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:31:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.79.15.203 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:31:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <d86e4678-7634-5574-3151-056fe92602aa@si6networks.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@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> <CAJc3aaPg=qOpiwJ29Bq92m2RfZ-VDJtLWb-GgZV7bXP6iELiRA@mail.gmail.com> <d86e4678-7634-5574-3151-056fe92602aa@si6networks.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:31:17 +0800
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=qM7kk_NQcm=ibnhv6gf_+JGkUyww6KCMOQ4Lsr8Ttdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11448c12aac329055dde1fd8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/i-ldNNL6MijTRb7HhjP5QjxYr40>
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 14:31:44 -0000

Fernando, the document is in AUTH48. If there is a technical problem with
it that is sufficient to pull it out of the publication queue at this
point, I haven't heard it yet. I think it would be nice to add a little
advice on how to manage the state, but it's up to the authors to do this or
not. This discussion is getting a bit old.

On Nov 13, 2017 22:27, "Fernando Gont" <fgont@si6networks.com>; wrote:

> On 11/13/2017 10:17 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
> > 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.
>
> We are the ones trying to make SLAAC stateful, contributing to IPv6
> automatic configuration complexity, and apparent lack of coherence with
> respect to which protocol supports both, and why we e.g. disregard the
> work of other WGs (e.g. dhc).
>
> If you want to *partially* duplicate functionality in another protocol,
> please provide a rationale, or don't.
>
>
>
> > They are designing
> > their network and know their requirements best.
>
> Exactly: nobody specified the requirements, or said why DHCPv6-PD
> doesn't fullfill them.
>
>
>
> > 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).
>
> You still have not answered my question.
>
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>