Re: IPv6 certification - IPv6 Router Advertisement Lifetime 0 and Reachable time 10 seconds

Isaac <isaactheogaraj@gmail.com> Sun, 24 January 2021 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <isaactheogaraj@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 A8C003A0925 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:56:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2kOlse6TJY5E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb34.google.com (mail-yb1-xb34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b34]) (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 980AD3A091C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb34.google.com with SMTP id x6so11266607ybr.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:56:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/8TfdRzUNqNk459LM0NuoN0+Bm6SgMFHb+32SgTMfi4=; b=MB536PPzTuD9TwUF4Ne3fpldLI2xSDhH934tFySex36qomMyDb7Kveg0IVelTR1bQi ia794qv47B6yruc2w2pSjvPJOCmyeSw22eO2Aun4fzXUhrH3W4Vwr8uJPaaQq0O1wNbx sch1vzPggcMotthGyLvHVe6BhK0Akr3/0jnHnfDrrBSHLHB1YWMLXnaTHOA8qYwABhkf Jfoon/nVTT4DhiH/RuuGTaGQg9XKwOt0W+5DfoZAINPtaZVQEqotsY1BWohTO+nY9QXX B7mcS2DTX0+h5r3izIwvNuzMyKO05L3oU+svD2RtWW/oyV8H9DokwuN40Hggc7ooSa/a 8W+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/8TfdRzUNqNk459LM0NuoN0+Bm6SgMFHb+32SgTMfi4=; b=g2VMMcmrKaUpTTdbLTfnyDn9d2yAbYSoaAhH6g55f9iXwQEm0FmyH16MuPScjkjFjM J9iqgtYCkTRgF7Co+s5iAe8NhXcbuhZPdz2CWyB9hCWN0LkJLjLTqwymxG++JqUVY8Oh lOMcPi2XmxLeSsAiyOA3YSJM1h43bUzoTWOjvi0IeJX6hcmP0cdt/+fej2x9HG1o4yBA M40kANmFo7Pl+ur1wE+5OAIoCsoBBTdDB90NfZ8+NhwLAsQJPvFOl92Pb09+QOmm9ZIH Ol9wmhmPdyzlXxCCR07KPPcX9BwsjxQn99syjs1/gzzr/K1u2WoyUUk0omJg/pYMmreo 0Hlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nsN4DlIldMmQsxeXBEAu9PL1pzmzYTCqYlGwIrkBV56WrUEro WIdDvNln2bNcuwdUBRwC1URcvdi/HfsBMcUghqo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwG5hKV7MZ4agJ1HX02XWxK8bZYttny1lib9AcVQdKj05nzYiyV40eBvsVBH1ORFjFKAlWwHtQ4ESVjWpYSOIs=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3bc5:: with SMTP id i188mr20726886yba.332.1611518159640; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:55:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGeZV=Q2gVtWFtY7zvFb=c1Bz8ZMfpjTOpj9oozWbF=-=SRZtw@mail.gmail.com> <B3401C7B-3303-481A-AEC9-53182D2242DF@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <B3401C7B-3303-481A-AEC9-53182D2242DF@employees.org>
From: Isaac <isaactheogaraj@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 01:25:48 +0530
Message-ID: <CAGeZV=Q=awxFd=vsfBiBC2vt7o3Wkm9ECMSi+UU90ATKmHY32Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 certification - IPv6 Router Advertisement Lifetime 0 and Reachable time 10 seconds
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000745ae705b9aacfda"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rMU26eXnpHOJfq53qWHwGOl8llY>
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: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 19:56:03 -0000

Thanks Ole.

"Yes, certainly cisco’s can do that. Presumably all others too. Setting RA
lifetime = 0 and reachable time to 10 does not affect behavior on the
router much. It will likely  adjust its own perception of the reachable
time on the link, but it might also have a separate configuration knob for
that. "

Need a favor, (if you have it handy) could you please point to a
configuration by Cisco router (any of the product type would do) which
sends out the RA lifetime 0 and reachable time 10 seconds and how commonly
(practically) that is used? (Especially in the context of modern global
networks where customers want things done autonmously/automatically with
the least number of knobs possible)

Thanks,
Isaac.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:02 AM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> On 24 Jan 2021, at 20:10, Isaac <isaactheogaraj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks Ole. Do hosts rely on RA packets for updating neighbor cache
> post determining that the router is no longer the default gateway? They can
> use NS/NA packets also right?
>
>
> The router lifetime is used to determine if this router is used as the
> default router. The hosts receive configuration information from the
> router, independently of that.
>
> BTW, what do you think is the configuration/scenario on a router which
> sends a RA packet with lifetime 0 and reachable time 10 seconds? Are you
> aware of any particular vendor's configuration which generates such packets?
>
>
> Yes, certainly cisco’s can do that. Presumably all others too. Setting RA
> lifetime = 0 and reachable time to 10 does not affect behavior on the
> router much. It will likely  adjust its own perception of the reachable
> time on the link, but it might also have a separate configuration knob for
> that.
>
> Cheers
> Ole
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 10:20 PM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
>> Isaac,
>>
>> The two variables are independent.
>> The example you cited is perfectly fine.
>>
>> the RA lifetime says: “don’t use me as a default router” and the
>> reachable time configures hosts on the link to consider a neighbor entry in
>> the ND cache reachable for 10s (for NUD).
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ole, 6man co-chair
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2021, at 17:07, Isaac <isaactheogaraj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Thanks Nick for the timely response!!!
>>
>> I understand your comment regarding the prerogative of IPv6 forum in this
>> regard. Meanwhile, we need a technical answer/analysis of the combination
>> of RA lifetime 0 and Reachable time 10s whether that makes sense or whether
>> it was clearly envisioned in the original IPv6 design. We know that RFC
>> puts forth a set of 'may', 'might' conditions which are deemed optional in
>> certian corner cases (possibly). We are already having discussions with the
>> certification body but we need to go with a clear cut technical response of
>> whether RA lifetime 0 and reachable time 10 seconds makes sense or not.
>> Same way, section 6.2.3 in RFC4861 puts forth a 'might' condition. RA with
>> a lifetime 0 and with advertised prefixes might mean that there may be a
>> second router in the LAN segment which advertises a positive lifetime. And
>> this itself is a corner scenario we believe and common scenario would be a
>> single router in a LAN segment who always advertises with a positive
>> lifetime until he decides to cease to be default gatewway for clients
>> (probably he is ging down as well). But the combination of RA lifetime 0
>> and reachable time 10 seconds doesn't make sense to us and we are clueless
>> as to how that can be supported. We do not want to deisgn some throw away
>> logic just for certfication purpose and we do think thats neither the
>> purpose of certification bodies nor the end customers. We need a solid
>> technical answer from the IETF IPv6 official body in this regard. Please
>> review and respond.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Isaac.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 5:38 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Isaac wrote on 24/01/2021 11:02:
>>> > At the moment, we are unable to find a scenario (real world usecase)
>>> to
>>> > support RA lifetime of 0 and RA reachable time of 10 seconds. Please
>>> > review and respond.
>>>
>>> Isaac,
>>>
>>> you're referring to an IPv6 Forum document, so they might be more
>>> qualified to give an answer to your question.
>>>
>>> As a potential pointer, rfc4861 documents the following case in section
>>> 6.2.3:
>>>
>>> >    A router might want to send Router Advertisements without
>>> advertising
>>> >    itself as a default router.  For instance, a router might advertise
>>> >    prefixes for stateless address autoconfiguration while not wishing
>>> to
>>> >    forward packets.  Such a router sets the Router Lifetime field in
>>> >    outgoing advertisements to zero.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>