IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Tue, 07 March 2017 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
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 080AA1293F3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:05:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
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 yw3UxiIZDk-A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::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 5B7CC127A91 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id y76so20174284qkb.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:05:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kWegZ2O8v02Ox6HdcJYAbbokx4R9wxXoPwo/wGFo+dU=; b=dnEuPDBGflEhtKPcVKbStzUDq+iXAYlWVgtdYE+9JS9p19McXIU2XR9L7td0PFwoBu 99Zv4psst5Jqs8KKCQiIA/KhF8oBAWCq6l0pjjn7GZekjbKvE0eUmHpKiSE4G7Ua6UrU PpR3EHtd0ckQp3H+yi1C76ngOr7bgSz7ZaEp0=
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=kWegZ2O8v02Ox6HdcJYAbbokx4R9wxXoPwo/wGFo+dU=; b=J0fHP1rmlxFzjmbBYDUlfW8FVdstyBq4MHH6g7gVHJ1cQ+xAZRYtq+KahjFob8nktk r7vJ7qOzWUmo27scvC9FzSLh+TsSKsBMbjXGJYytYmnBjLWEjKsZK7XKip+0+YpJLbqt dEEhGWDplTr3Ym678ofnQn2qQSUe6ptkY9j8lP62zj5lR/v1yh/U2FZDTYCLmA6wLBQp 9VMQNWaeippNHyeyOkTcL0S55/TTrNhPWBYiUNjCm02w+8rZ+BrHl/JuTkV2XmvSNe+9 RPW07JA6rtBYkKkLFU9t/FvO+dRujYm+4mVaGzfMbrVv1k9TIMdy78hAQ3tq9GgJJmel ut/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39llgzMfBmy4djqn8+mrQptYX2TzaNLH84umYT76jz2oiG8amKScFtFsW82EEg0X0Qx+okcigOLHO8oRnPur
X-Received: by 10.55.12.67 with SMTP id 64mr2294439qkm.291.1488913535427; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:05:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.225 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:05:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com> <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com> <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com> <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com>
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:05:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c89ec619343054a28b214"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ke7LjAb6btCNvtcxoTJiJuBmUPo>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 19:05:38 -0000

Hi James,

Last Paragraph of Section 6.3.4

"  Similarly,[ADDRCONF] may impose certain restrictions on the prefix
length for
   address configuration purposes.  Therefore, the prefix might be
   rejected by [ADDRCONF] implementation in the host.  However, the
   prefix length is still valid for on-link determination when combined
   with other flags in the prefix option."

It allows for rejection in ADDRCONF as LwIP does, but requires on-link
determination.

~Tim


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:59 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:50, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>
>
> It's valid to ignore it for SLAAC, but not ND.   RFC 4861 is clear about
> processing the PIO for on-link determination, LwIP isn't following ND spec.
>
> I’m happy to defer to your considerable expertise in these matters.
>
> Question: could you point me at the requirements language in RFC 4861 that
> LwIP is specifically violating? I’m confused because when I search on the
> phrase "Prefix Length” in the text, the relevant excerpt that seems to
> apply is this one:
>
>       Note: Implementations can choose to process the on-link aspects of
>       the prefixes separately from the stateless address
>       autoconfiguration aspects of the prefixes by, e.g., passing a copy
>       of each valid Router Advertisement message to both an "on-link"
>       and an "addrconf" function.  Each function can then operate
>       independently on the prefixes that have the appropriate flag set.
>
>
> The way I read this is that implementations MAY choose to process the
> Prefix Length validation differently in on-link determination and SLAAC
> functions, but that it doesn’t seem to be expressly REQUIRED. Sadly, there
> don’t seem to be any other relevant texts about the Prefix Length.
>
> I can believe that LwIP is violating RFC 4861, but before I file an error
> report for this, I’d like to be able to cite the actual requirements
> keywords, and I’m concerned about the possibility this Note above may be
> used by the LwIP maintainers as a justification to reject the problem
> report.
>
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email