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

Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> Mon, 14 July 2008 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E050D28C20F; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5926B28C20F for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.131
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYPxNb4lNFAQ for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF4B28C11B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.226.130]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6E9Q20Z013056; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:26:02 GMT
Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6E9PkdZ738984 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <487B1B95.40208@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:25:41 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070723)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: MILES DAVID <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
References: <D9872168DBD43A41BD71FFC4713274D405429068@xmb-ams-33b.emea.cisco.com> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03A2C459@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D0170C2BD@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41E2B@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com> <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D01762084@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41E52@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com> <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D01762C38@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D01762C38@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com>
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

MILES DAVID wrote:
> 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,

Sorry for not catching this earlier, but as I pointed out in an earlier 
message, dropping such ND messages would cause failure to communicate in 
some cases.

Hence the proposed cure is worse than the decease IMHO.

FWIW what I said in v6ops is included below. I think "problematic for 
sure" meant "broken, don't do that".

    Erik

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Neighbor Discovery and on-link determination
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:25:38 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>;
To: David Miles <davidm@thetiger.com>;
CC: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>;, IETF V6OPS WG <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>;
References: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0806222254000.7835@wibble.focb.co.nz>; 
<200806241536.m5OFanr6005744@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>; 
<C93F5BD2-225F-493A-B8B9-E0BC28C94037@thetiger.com>; 
<4862201A.4040409@sun.com>; 
<AB66914B-7B0B-4505-A796-DB2B9E605F05@thetiger.com>;

David Miles wrote:
 >
 > Hi Erik,
 >
 > I'll put both answers into one email:
 >
 >
 > If routerA sent a ND to routerB and the source address of the ND if
 > off-link, populating the Neighbour Cache will not achieve any real
 > functionality. Yes, I'd propose it is ignored by the router. Possibly we
 > could trigger a unsolicited Neighbour Advertisement from RouterB?
 > I cannot see any impact on redirect or proxy service functionality and I
 > really see this as a misconfiguration.

The message validation rules that you referred to are cases when the
packet would be ignored (and that would be problematic for sure.)

It makes sense to look carefully at the effect of "do not create a
neighbor cache entry for the sender if sender is not in one of the
on-link prefixes".

 > With respect to your other email and my security concerns:  if  the
 > receipt of a ND or NA on any interface, irrespective of prefix list,
 > were able to both populate the Neighbour Cache and update/affect the
 > forwarding behaviour then I would be worried. Seeing you have both
 > clarified this was not the intent I do not have an issue, but it does
 > seem of little benefit to populate a Neighbour Cache entry if it is
 > never consulted.
 >
 > I know the scenario is contrived however it was brought to my attention
 > from another source, so the clarifications are appreciated.

OK

    Erik

  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:shemant@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:44 AM
> To: MILES DAVID; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); ipv6@ietf.org
> Cc: Thomas Narten; erik.nordmark@sun.com
> 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:David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au] 
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:24 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee); ipv6@ietf.org
> Cc: Thomas Narten; erik.nordmark@sun.com
> 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:shemant@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2008 12:37 AM
> To: MILES DAVID; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Wojciech Dec (wdec); Brian
> Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
> 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: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> MILES DAVID
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:57 PM
> To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Wojciech Dec (wdec); Brian Haberman;
> ipv6@ietf.org
> 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:wbeebee@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, 27 June 2008 12:29 AM
> To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); Brian Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
> 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: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Wojciech Dec (wdec)
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:05 AM
> To: Brian Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
> 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: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Brian Haberman
>> Sent: 26 June 2008 14:17
>> To: ipv6@ietf.org
>> 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
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------