RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[e-mail]>]

David,

No problem, you're welcome. I will talk with my co-authors in Erik and
Wes and see what we can do. To us it's obvious that ND is a link-local
scoped protocol and of course, if a receiver sees an ND message that is
not present in the receiver's on-link prefixes, the receiver has to drop
the ND message. That is what Erik said too in v6ops on 25th June 2008.
Sorry, at the time I wasn't subscribed to v6ops and saw your thread a
day or two later. Otherwise I would have said the same.

Kind Regards.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: MILES DAVID [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:23 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [e-mail]
Cc: Thomas Narten; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Hemant,

Thanks for your patience.

Given we are now very clear that a receiver should drop any ND message
from a source that it is not in its prefix list, might I suggest the
paragraph in question be amended to say:
In addition to the Prefix List, individual addresses are on-link if
   they are the target of a Redirect Message indicating on-link.

Removing the text: 
or the
   source of a valid Neighbor Solicitation or Neighbor Advertisement
   message.

The clarification would be a step in the right direction.

My 2c, and yes - this is now closed. 

-David


-----Original Message-----
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:44 AM
To: MILES DAVID; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [e-mail]
Cc: Thomas Narten; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

David,

Please see in line below between "<hs>" and "</hs>".

-----Original Message-----
From: MILES DAVID [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:24 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee); [e-mail]
Cc: Thomas Narten; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Thanks Hemant and Wes,

To your question on examples - this came about as a result of customer
interpretation of RFC 4861 (and a specific test case).

<hs> May we know more about this customer test cases? Is your host to
host example also something that your customer is testing? If yes, what
OS are the hosts running and why are hosts not behaving correctly for
basic source address selection? Further if your customer is testing
router to router ND, what router is being used and what is firmware
version on the router? You see, in IETF such details need to be open to
nail down any discussion. Anyhow, for the router to router example you
gave, Thomas Narten and Erik have already closed that issue saying no
harm is caused because the bogus ND-cache entry is not used. We closed
the host to host example in our earlier email saying the forwarding
table on the host will take precedence over ND-cache - just like the
router to router ND example.
</hs>

 The RFC literally says one should populate Neighbour Cache when you
receive a NS regardless of whether that address is in the Prefix List
and any NA/ND received is on-link. This process in RFC 4861 does not
describe how on-link determination is affected so I hoped we can have
this discussion to conclude whether the text should remain or whether we
need to clarify on-link determination. The examples you have used (no
router with
manual/DHCPv6 assigned addresses) are much better.

My query relates to text in both RFC4861 and your draft, where we say
that any ND received means the address is considered on-link. In your
draft you explicitly state (in point 5) that if there are no Default
Routers, and no other information indicating on-link prefix (including
the mere presence of an address) then (sub-point 2): "The host MUST NOT
perform address resolution for non-link-local addresses".
This would seem to create a stalemate situation. I.e., for any received
ND a host will consider that address on-link (bullet point in question
in RFC4861), but you MUST NOT perform address resolution unless a
destination address is on-link (your draft section 5.2) and so cannot
populate other hosts with your addresses by sending NS.

<hs> Not quite. Bullet 5 from section 2 of our draft is derived from
RFC4943. Please read section 4 of RFC4943 that said on-link assumption
is harmful. Our bullet is totally correct to say, once it has been
determined that an address or prefix is not on-link, then of course, the
address or prefix is off-link. If an address or prefix is off-link,
then, of course, an interface cannot issue an NS to resolve any
non-link-local destination. There is no stalemate because only if no
on-link determination could be made on an address or prefix, does the
node goes into recommended procedure of RFC4943 to send an ICMP
Destination Unreachable. Of course, if an on-link determination has been
made because if an NS was received at the interface in a router-less
network, and prefix length is configured on the interface's configured
IPv6 address, the recommended operation of RFC4943 will not take place. 
</hs>

 NA are not periodically sent and a receiving host should discard them
if the target does not match a valid interface (RFC 4861 7.2.5).

Per your email, the intent is clearly for the receipt of a ND to update
on-link determination (this ::/128 is now on-link). We must also ensure
we will send ND for this on-link address to update other hosts.

As want the reception of a ND to indicate that address (the
target/source of a NA, and the source of a NS) is on-link we need some
clarifying text that would describe:
- How on-link determination is enhanced with information from ND
messages received
- That we shouldn't discard NA with a target that isn't in the receiving
host's Neighbour Cache - we need to somehow update on-link determination
with information from the NA
- Whether we update Prefix List with ::/128 from the received ND
messages; consult Neighbour Cache for on-link determination; create an
entry in the Destination Cache, etc
- Determine how long an address will be considered on-link for. What
lifetime will we associate with this learnt on-link address? Until
interface reset/reinitialise or receipt of a PIO? What if a default
router becomes active - should we still treat this ::/128 (from a
received ND) on-link?
- How a hostA will send NA/ND to other hosts so they may determine
hostA's address is on-link

<hs>I, Wes, Erik, and Thomas have already made is clear that routing
table on a router or data forwarding table on a host takes precedence
over any ND-cache entry. Further, any change in drafts or RFC's are made
if any severe problem is found for tens of millions of nodes. We haven't
see such a problem in your router-less host example. It makes sense to
consider your alternatives below. 
</hs>

The other alternatives are to:
- Require a prefix-len be specified when manually configuring an address
(ie, adopt SLAAC rules)

<hs> Our draft already covers such a thought. Please see bullet 2 of
section 2 in our draft. One sentence in the bullet says:
[Note that this requirement for manually configured addresses is not
explicitly mentioned in [RFC4861].]. We highlighted manual configuration
in our draft. After that, it is clear as daylight that on-link
determination for a prefix cannot be made unless a prefix length is also
available with the prefix in manual configuration. I think bullet 2
should suffice for this alternative suggestion by you.
</hs>

- Add prefix-len to DHCPv6 IA_NA/TA Options to support environments
without routers (only used when there is no RA received) 

<hs> Please read emails from me in 6man archives where I have clearly
said, I will never agree to adding prefix len as a DHCPv6 option. My
reasons are clear in the emails archived. When I get the time, I can
forward some emails privately to you. But, please let's not gate this
draft waiting for those emails.

I hope we can get closure with this email.
</hs>

Thanks.

Hemant

- Mandate the requirement for RA to support any IPv6 address other than
link-local

Best Regards,

-David Miles

-----Original Message-----
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2008 12:37 AM
To: MILES DAVID; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Wojciech Dec (wdec); Brian
Haberman; [e-mail]
Cc: Bob Hinden
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

David,

We will explain where we think RFC4861 came from with the 4th bullet in
on-link definition in Terminology section of RFC4861. We will explain
why that bullet is needed and why the bullet does not change. Further,
we don't understand where you are going with these contrived examples?
It's a stretch already being in a router-less network and contriving
examples that clearly have source-address selection problems. In the
routerA to routerB contrived example, the example included routes
between A and B. We have said routing table takes precedence over ND
cache in that example. For the host to host case below, since IPv6
addresses have been configured on the hosts with a prefix length, each
host has an entry in data forwarding table for the prefix derived from
host IPv6 address configuration. IPv6 data forwarding tables on the host
will take precedence in the same way as in your router example.

Anyhow, here is the justification for the 4th bullet in RFC 4861 which
is what statements in our draft derive from.

In a router-less network, a node's network interface may be configured
using manual configuration or DHCPv6. Note DHCPv6 does not dole out
prefix length without which, just given an IPv6 address from DHCPv6, a
DHCPv6 client cannot make an on-link determination for any prefix.
Likewise, manual configuration may not configure a prefix length when an
IPv6 address is configured on the interface - in this case, the node
still does not have any means to determine what prefix is on-link.  Thus
far, any host in this network has not been able to determine if any
prefix is on-link. Only if the host is able to determine any prefix is
on-link, can the host in such a network send data. There in comes the
rule in 4th bullet from the definition of on-link from RFC4861 that
applies to this network

- any Neighbor Discovery message is received from the address.

Hemant & Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
MILES DAVID
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:57 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Wojciech Dec (wdec); Brian Haberman;
[e-mail]
Cc: Bob Hinden
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Wes & Hemant,

Can we walk through the situation of hosts without routers where you
suggest a possible issue?


HostA ----(link)---- HostB

HostA:
2002:db8:100::1234/64
2002:db8:200::1234/64

HostB:
2002:db8:100::9999/64

Are we suggesting HostA may src from 2002:db8:200::1234 to
2002:db8:100::9999, ie, we are forgoing source-address selection and are
overriding this behaviour?
Assuming that is the case, and assuming HostB did in fact populate a
Neighbour Cache entry with 2002:db8:200::1234 - STALE, I cannot see how
this would affect HostB's next-hop/on-link determination.

According to the current text in RFC4861 HostB would perform the
following on the first packet to send to 2002:db8:200::1234:
1) Check destination cache (empty, never seen this destination before)
2) Check Prefix List for on-link determination (off-link) -
2002:db8:200::1234 is not in the Prefix List
3) If off-link, select a router from Default Router List and determine
next-hop IP (no default routers) --end in our example as there are no
routers--
4) Consult Neighbour Cache for link-layer address of next-hop, invoke
Address Resolution if needed
5) Cache result in destination cache

I understand Neighbour Cache is not consulted for next-hop/on-link
determination, and Destination Cache is updated with the result of the
Prefix-List lookup (next-hop determination). So while there is a STALE
entry in the Neighbour Cache, it is never queried. Similar to the case
of a router, I think we would need to update a host's equivalent (the
Prefix List) to affect forwarding.

It would be good to better understand the scenario you are seeing
between host and host. 


Best Regards,

-David



-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, 27 June 2008 12:29 AM
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); Brian Haberman; [e-mail]
Cc: MILES DAVID; Bob Hinden
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

This rule derives directly from the Terminology section of RFC 4861
(definition of on-link).

Note that the presence of a bogus entry causes no harm (the routing
table takes precedence over the ND cache in this case).

However, the removal of the rule DOES cause harm in the case of
communication without routers.

Therefore, we currently see no reason to change the text.

- Wes & Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:05 AM
To: Brian Haberman; [e-mail]
Cc: MILES DAVID; Bob Hinden
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Based on a recent thread
(http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00896.html) the
following paragraph from the draft appears to warrant some more thought
if not outright a revision

"   In addition to the Prefix List, individual addresses are on-link if
   they are the target of a Redirect Message indicating on-link, or the
   source of a valid Neighbor Solicitation or Neighbor Advertisement
   message.  Note that Redirect Messages can also indicate an address is
   off-link.  Individual address entries can be expired by the Neighbor
   Unreachability Detection mechanism."

Using unconditionally the source address of a neighbour solicitation or
NA to determine on-link would indeed appear to be undesirable, unless
the intent is allow some direct host-host cross subnet/prefix
communication without a router involved at any stage (this is not a good
idea IMO). A constraint could be introduced such as: A host only learns
on-link addresses from the source of NS and NA messages iff it already
has an on-link prefix that would cover that address. Learning from
Redirect messages would continue to be allowed.

My 2c.
-Woj.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Brian Haberman
> Sent: 26 June 2008 14:17
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Bob Hinden
> Subject: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
> 
> All,
>       This message starts a 3-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
> advancing:
> 
>       Title     : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between
>                   Links and Subnet Prefixes
>       Author(s) : H. Singh, et al.
>       Filename  : draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
>       Pages     : 8
>       Date      : 2008-05-08
> 
> as a Proposed Standard.  Substantive comments and statements of 
> support for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing 
> list.
> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor.  
> This last call will end on July 10, 2008.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian & Bob
> 6MAN co-chairs
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------