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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 10 November 2017 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 9C430129489; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:33:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZrIJrFCBofW2; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D18F129481; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.234.32.137] (unknown [87.200.50.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B23B8049D; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 21:33:26 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "6man-ads@tools.ietf.org" <6man-ads@ietf.org>, "v6ops-ads@ietf.org" <v6ops-ads@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host@tools.ietf.org
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAAedzxpLL26kDi1yzB=rDQjuNOpb64wtCBMcP+VYf=dc54rF7w@mail.gmail.com> <65664ca5-b8fe-0ca0-82fc-99e120426aea@si6networks.com> <f3fb649f-9f41-bfc1-04fc-b36372cb677b@bogus.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <0abf5614-c5a0-2942-771b-29426bd4cba8@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 17:34:59 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f3fb649f-9f41-bfc1-04fc-b36372cb677b@bogus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jYErgLj_Juoz4Z77uFOCkP_PJ3A>
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:33:33 -0000

On 11/10/2017 02:57 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 11/9/17 16:05, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 11/09/2017 12:02 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
[....]
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> Describing the virtues of one prefix per node, or how isolating nodes
>> (no "on link prefix") or the like are all fine for an informational
>> document, or even as a BCP (if that's how the wg feels).
> 
> there is an available recourse to an onlink prefix in form of the
> link-local address for a deligated prefix.
> 
>    Or, optionally in some cases, a
>    solicited RA response could be sent unicast to the link-local address
>    of the subscriber as detailed in RFC4861
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-13#section-4

Fine with that. Then one would need to specify that a different prefix
should be announced to each node (based on the source addr of the RS?).
And also specify when you stop doing that. Or when you consider that
such prefix is no longer in use. And what you do if you run out of
available/free prefixes.

Isn't that a protocol? I wonder how folks define what a protocol is...

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492