Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 28 January 2020 04:13 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 0D2D63A07FF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:13:40 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 xwvE0OEWhWnT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3783A07FC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.103] (unknown [186.183.48.178]) (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 AE27A86B79; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 05:13:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: SLAAC vs DHCPv6 (II)
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
References: <03C832CE-7282-4320-BF1B-4CB7167FE6BE@employees.org> <MN2PR11MB3565330989D411525D30B90DD80F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <80207E17-AE8E-4D19-B516-D2E6AB70721E@employees.org> <8D5610EA-49D3-483E-BB7A-67D67BC89346@jisc.ac.uk> <DE7B0688-230F-4A5C-8E24-9EAED9FD9FEB@puck.nether.net> <AFEBAD7D-DF24-4924-8B9A-60DF22BA1953@consulintel.es> <c42affce-fbd3-23ec-c9ff-4f05cdf38630@si6networks.com> <41173152-A8E8-4241-9DE7-376AA7AFB813@consulintel.es> <c4166907-b6c9-a4ef-fd59-cf539bbe0405@si6networks.com> <43D76C96-C16B-4BEB-B9B8-C68D53BCE63F@fugue.com> <fb5b8377-892d-2777-ef9b-4f9ddefa6c93@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr034_tu7ZoJ1FCfDYhNSN6igm-ZQyR4u3U+UDMr=huGOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1af0b06d-f9d7-5ea1-27f3-b417eb9148fa@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 01:13:21 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr034_tu7ZoJ1FCfDYhNSN6igm-ZQyR4u3U+UDMr=huGOw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/oFl9bErBVrSNnr3_7D01f9DER28>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 28 Jan 2020 04:13:40 -0000

On 28/1/20 00:56, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, 11:25 Fernando Gont, <fgont@si6networks.com 
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
> 
>      > Somebody tried to do this in DHC a few years ago, but it never
>     got much
>      > interest.
> 
>     Do address registration for SLAAC withing DHC WG?
> 
> 
> IIRC that was tried a few years ago and did not go anywhere (I think 
> Suresh has more details). >
> We could try again, though - if it's true that the main reason that 
> operators want DHCPv6 is tracking, then it could be a good middle ground 
> between devices that want SLAAC's ability to form addresses without 
> permission and networks that want DHCPv6's tracking abilities.

I don't believe the motivation is tracking, but some sort of control, 
including:
* logging
* "enforcing" policy on nodes



> If we do this it's important that the semantics only support tracking 
> existing addresses and not requesting addresses. Otherwise there will be 
> a conflict with the recommendations in RFC 7934 section 8 - and it would 
> basically be identical to IA_NA which is already a standard.

Well, the whole thread entitled "RFC4941bis: consequences of many 
addresses for the network" seem to be in conflict with RFC7934. -- i.e., 
folks have concerns about nodes configuring an arbitrary number of 
addresses at will.



> Note that 6man is working another way of getting this information to the 
> network, see the "multicast NA to ff02::2 whenever an address is 
> configured" proposal in draft-linkova-6man-grand.

I don't think that's registration in the same sense. For Jen's proposal, 
it's "best effort" registration. For logging, you need to implement a 
reliability mechanism. As we keep putting more state into SLAAC, it 
becomes more of AAC than SLAAC. And IPv6 automatic configuration as a 
whole becomes harder and harder to explain to newcomers, so to speak.

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