IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]

Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 27 September 2022 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 52530C15B266 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zvyrGCFkDPLq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E29C15A729 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id l12so12232892ljg.9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=OCmTAPDLBa52Qgj84n+xj4dv+4glkDQI5u79DSQ7xuw=; b=IORCsu3GfRfkxcHMAqSAuaBVUAjp/WElIUHj4aK6jaydCrX452YkhE4/RTnWyoGUc8 TusPhdH0i5p+Xoo4xux1dlbtHH/01Xf3b2IQQEvsx3sQcImFDXHTN2fnhZoJCF/n1gqL ZfvDVyq97T0s4jvA/bq5uAJfoPMuO0cvXmqUZ7wlno31mx+QFm24XZ+yEXOzLYel1EcQ w/YkwFtGyASv4c2lQHmuZ2j+QIevrvzyIvIQ5VGDf97lj0drK8Hy435/pgTfB2meB9Ba k9lHXzIkrN7CJNhO/my9A7lYj9yUYrBnyJ+4b0L7YBzG+VFidayFU0hTGlyurHHNEB9T IEhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=OCmTAPDLBa52Qgj84n+xj4dv+4glkDQI5u79DSQ7xuw=; b=HCFm+4RepyBZw9ikgdPnY3ALIU63sFhLvsHsU1rv8w0h1z2pSR78cQVTni5e3MmTxN aY3giEQXcpmsMsEPA2GGdb4k6bNsSfRWqrfaG1lITnUYs7xEYdBn1qunJSnAP7pIhYl8 S8GyP+Y3QSkwtNFQIObBrD8v3sXiGViQcntlF6ZRreJlabPV5jMIl0eLFKAXTekPI+W4 tbuINGxQjyTroJhne/eGuo5Xlw2S9adGy4Gc/H3VZUwdOhcYqCydWBFQ6ifpJ26PAOnm T69QqmEpKbJMgIw8UWSKz/xADGXkzEhhVWgWdq3UYHGjAVAaqaWpyDsIOjy4ZcMCkvU8 n5aA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1EXOCjq4TNCmTmhKL+hXOl5HM3uLzOnqsV4Em2P1s1674cpeRX iVLlLiobsRGLycPNAiGnjPBZWVQjPLjtdLrc+4Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5sG3YwhPAUTzocw9kohRjYykljGHbDE3QSWw9wiOJuWJc87nnyA1dHCxeM4z2YBsEeJfSc4q1eV4tKWlAcCnA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:555:b0:26c:6a30:770 with SMTP id q21-20020a05651c055500b0026c6a300770mr10846917ljp.376.1664311837043; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a55ec35e-1e98-5447-09aa-cf03d98d6e44@gmail.com> <C7A2356F-620F-4DE9-A848-5D6BF71A7DDC@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <C7A2356F-620F-4DE9-A848-5D6BF71A7DDC@employees.org>
From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:50:23 +1300
Message-ID: <CANMZLAZc-TbxaiQ0mbDjTOTf8Pvag1aH51ayXVorG3eTDNGt0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d7aff205e9aecb66"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rEVnZ18efhq9AE_e_rm1ahWlUpE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 27 Sep 2022 20:50:45 -0000

RFC8028

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)


On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, 09:00 Ole Troan, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On 27 Sep 2022, at 21:48, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 28-Sep-22 08:40, Ole Troan wrote:
> >>> (It is the presence of a ULA /48 prefix in local routing that we care
> about. The PIO for a /64 within that /48 is the trigger that it needs high
> precedence.)
> >> Extending and overloading existing protocol fields is problematic. The
> proponents of this need at least to consider the consequences for existing
> implementations and future extensibility of the protocol. As well as the
> deployability of this, compared to existing standardized solutions.
> >
> > There isn't a standardized solution, since the mechanism for updating
> the RFC6724 table is not standardized. A=L=0 is already standardized to
> mean "I can route this prefix" and the proposal builds on that exact
> semantic.
>
> Can you point to text stating that a PIO with A=L=0 in an RA from a router
> is a promise by that router to forward traffic for those prefixes? Or that
> a PIO has that semantic in any context.
>
> Rfc7078?
>
> O.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email