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

Fernando Gont <> Mon, 13 November 2017 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71EB0129AB7; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:55:45 -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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ODWeDq7lzULm; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1463F127B52; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:ed68:7911:ebe1:178e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:ed68:7911:ebe1:178e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24AE780747; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:55:40 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: Victor Kuarsingh <>, IPv6 Ops WG <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:57:24 +0800
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:55:45 -0000


On 11/13/2017 10:31 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 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. 

The technical problem is that this is a v6ops document making SLAAC
stateful. As discussed, making SLAAC stateful brings breakage scenarios
not present in SLAAC, and that is certainly not a minor change.

And having folks noted that they have implemented this sort of behavior
without changing SLAAC, the low-level protocol details in Section 4 are
even less unwarranted.

It is not my call what's the proper action. But I do note that this is
yet another BCP that rather that essentially disregards work of other wg
(dhc), unnecessarily. Are you are pushing a BCP with a mechanism that is
so underspecified, that folks meaning to implement this are likely to
introduce breakage.

That said, it is not my call what's the proper action to follow. My
intent (noted to e.g. Suresh off-line) is not to obstruct the document,
but to avoid breakage -- particularly when it's unwarranted.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492