RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Sat, 14 April 2012 18:13 UTC
Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.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 656C121F852D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.737
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.737 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wp4n4QEDH0Bw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E7D21F84FB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail50-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.235) by DB3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.3.84.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:12:37 +0000
Received: from mail50-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail50-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021B1340780; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:12:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -6
X-BigFish: VS-6(zz1432Nzz1202hzzz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail50-db3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail50-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail50-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1334427140860986_10638; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:12:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3EHSMHS008.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.229]) by mail50-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD59480D2B; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:12:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by DB3EHSMHS008.bigfish.com (10.3.87.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:12:20 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.68) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.4; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:12:19 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.4.253]) by TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.68]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.004; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:12:19 -0700
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
Subject: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Thread-Topic: 3484bis and privacy addresses
Thread-Index: AQHNGUajDaqZ7/kESEaVgy0zYPsEC5aZSPWQgAErsYCAACukIA==
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:12:18 +0000
Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B5159E0@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <4F716D5C.40402@innovationslab.net> <4F726C9E.50107@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B5054C1@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4F83D8D0.5030402@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B508719@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4F858C32.6060709@globis.net> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B50CBC2@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4F87D4EA.4040801@globis.net> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B513879@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4F8935C7.6020602@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F8935C7.6020602@globis.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:13:18 -0000
> Forgive me if I read your reply wrongly, but you seem to point the blame for > there being an incomplete solution for remote management squarely at > draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-03. No, I'm saying the issues you're raising are issues with draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt not rfc3484bis. > So what would I like to see happen? > =========================== > > What about defining a conceptual "address selection policy table" in > RFC3484bis in addition to the "prefix policy table"? > > It would contain a complete list of the conceptual knobs and switches that > influence the behaviour of RFC3484bis end nodes, conceptual variable > names, conceptual variable type, what behaviour the variable sets (cross > referenced to the section), default settings (where these are already agreed in > the WG) etc. Currently it does have a complete list in text. For system-wide switches that control sorting, there's only one. > Then draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-03 would simply define how to > transport those options over DHCPv6, rather than having to define the > options themselves. Agree that draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt should define how to transport over DHCPv6 system-wide administrative options controlling sorting. Currently we only have 1 and draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt is missing it. > Equally, if an implementor wanted to set these options via a config file, or AD > group policy, or any other management process, they'd have a check list of > things to do as well. > > And if there are ever future extensions to RFC3484bis (e.g. a new rule to > introduce dollar cost of network links or QoS factors into the address > selection process), any new switches or new default behaviour could also be > added to this conceptual "address selection policy table". > If we'd already done this in RFC3484 it would have probably avoided a lot of > pain with divergent implementations. > > To be clear: I don't necessarily see the need to define new knobs or switches > right now: just to clarify what existing knobs or switches will conceptually be > called, what their conceptual types are (e.g. boolean), how/when they're set, > what behaviour they influence, and their default behaviour (if agreed), plus a > hint of how to add new knobs and switches in the future. This conceptual > approach has been used very successfully in ND (RFC4861) and other > standards, and I think it would address my current concerns of there being > too much hard coding in address selection. I take your comment as asking for a summary table in rfc 3484bis of system-wide config options. That could be done as a purely editorial change, although if there's only 1 thing in the table it's less interesting. But if others in the WG think this would be helpful, then yes we can do that. -Dave
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Jong-Hyouk Lee
- 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian Haberman
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Teemu Savolainen
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Mohacsi Janos
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tim Chown
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Roland Bless
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Samita Chakrabarti
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Simon Perreault
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Alex Abrahams
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tina TSOU
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Wuyts Carl
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian Haberman
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Sander Steffann
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dominik Elsbroek
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses STARK, BARBARA H
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Karl Auer
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Francis Dupont
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses jonne.soininen
- Re: Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Doug Barton
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses t.petch
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Alex Abrahams
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Doug Barton
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Mark Andrews
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Fernando Gont
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses james woodyatt
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Dave Thaler
- Re: RE: 3484bis and privacy addresses Ray Hunter
- Re: 3484bis and privacy addresses Arifumi Matsumoto