Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 11 November 2017 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 3DBCF1270A0; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:53:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Nxh0q1vEb1wY; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B90F124B0A; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.19.248.110] (unknown [57.190.1.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6830880E71; Sat, 11 Nov 2017 03:53:30 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com> <9d154133-a1de-7774-1589-c7069bf279ee@si6networks.com> <0b45890d-ea4a-47b8-a650-ceb72b066df8@gmail.com> <ea772bfd-4004-7f94-8469-b50e3aff0f29@si6networks.com> <F2330138-6842-4C38-B5A0-FB40BFACD038@employees.org> <e7465ac9-731f-f41b-c240-f2d9fd6e3c59@si6networks.com> <C5C1A9B5-389A-47CE-AD5C-B1D5C97DB995@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <d9f00d78-9f9f-6a39-6484-4aa557426872@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 23:51:04 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C5C1A9B5-389A-47CE-AD5C-B1D5C97DB995@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tqyS2Boz4W8Eyf_Veb5xu6ujq2w>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 02:53:42 -0000

On 11/10/2017 06:45 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>> On 11 Nov 2017, at 05:04, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>; wrote:
>>
>> On 11/10/2017 05:42 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>> 1) My comment to the list was essentially arguing that this
>>>> document contains a protocol specification, and such part is not
>>>> suitable. I think it should be easy to converge on something
>>>> regarding this one:
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone (you, for instance), provide a definition of what is a
>>>> protocol, and the run this document through such definition and
>>>> figure out if it fits or it doesn't?
>>>
>>>
>>> A protocol is a system of rules that allow _two_ or more nodes to
>>> communicate. The protocol specifies the syntax, semantics and so on
>>> (1).
>>>
>>> A protocol specification does not specify only the wire format.
>>>
>>> 'unique-ipv6-prefix' does not specify changes in the wire-format, nor
>>> its semantics. It only requires implementation change on one 'side'
>>> of the protocol, namely on the routers. From that perspective I think
>>> you can argue that this is not a protocol specification.
>>
>> How do you get from this: "it only requires implementation change on one
>> 'side' of the protocol" to this: "From that perspective I think you can
>> argue that this is not a protocol specification". (First sentence
>> acknowledges it *is* a protocol)
> 
> For it to be a new protocol (or protocol change, it requires _two_ or more communicating entities to be updated.
> (The reference above was to the ND/SLAAC protocol.)

Who said you need to change both sides for it to be a protocol update?

You have a sate machine for each endpoint. As soon as you change one,
you have changed the protocol.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492