Re: [v6ops] RFC4861 question - short prefixes in PIOs

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sat, 29 June 2019 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 DD9F5120968; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 Rpg_f7R6mKyl; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (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 ECAC3120965; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id b7so7759516otl.11; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
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=Ygf+DGXY5UyfxJcw/nm1giwugrrxPmy+LvqW+J8cHB4=; b=PXsfNHGrRufCbGBrDCPDtPDNDtCXKh7JfbfxtBnrCRwrRlq7XHgAVMOVL27sQGiUUZ 4Ho3/ZyDumdLf84Ys8Xvm6Rd1NuSQctiS+GH6lrGgnOKmpM3rLjadciEc83radIK90Mt TvmY+8D8b8N5lgO35XjR3MKxZnFFn6iA4M6kTqOrGTZF/beLJ3NoCdZ+xwL0Ek4B4hUB ePoQg0RmwSgVRXBSKvTK6jYdMde8/D4glL8hPbl/FhRG5tJ9GDzsF5wziMmF4xMn2gnB qAKHKEoTj8LcSKZSo4BzewuSGGCwaViPaQrIsCkbJrGXcu7bGnCw5NG8h7Gj+TGDm2df k/Qw==
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=Ygf+DGXY5UyfxJcw/nm1giwugrrxPmy+LvqW+J8cHB4=; b=nID0/AJ8qp549iygQTVH8MXys6YPYHBWZXeNqM7pcbx3RqcgP44M/l4txSeU0HbL6u TB9Ryk9ckwhJpPDN3CUzSPBWYqgGp860fQkeUKQoC8aCsCLmi6CVg8cIvNvATVDScUKl fRu2NdO1Kv6fvQfhzpSwn9ek5fLCdpU1BEtPSVJXBfm4ZvkeGRs2EuhoZ2wZx/j0pTnE Sk1LCuT22lNZTK9l3/6ivvlEYw2g7OdBI6T2b55NwNi6Mvk1CDDO5b+c/8lSUeAK3oqt XOBLMteeUYLI22KQ7Fnmn7ucf2Fs1Wh9kB/p6gBKooBxbGzTLgWMoZuvkHoSjoueAqEH DwaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVqwchDvMQVi8kKeEThl5ox2nZ8ByNBd5tmY49JMYcWWBWpzyW3 OzrQgSxaFkmSiWRJacGGhHNO/QNvECSxKt+KpQkZ8w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwUu9lDfT56YyLX0n2z3Umt3Zz3G2heRW3CDNvXv2RFLTAakcOF+jwwFaibUovAbJnsiQQX4u+uIvhgLLyCt8Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:65da:: with SMTP id z26mr10007976oth.257.1561769389236; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <729f46ec4a8b419797e15bbdcac3e549@boeing.com> <4615.1561671634@localhost> <m1hgtnL-0000JLC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
In-Reply-To: <m1hgtnL-0000JLC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:49:37 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xiOmQ9Lzp_jphW7rhpGw0ByO4vFTGLYyMbkm3Bkh2v1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC4861 question - short prefixes in PIOs
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aaa5d8058c6bc56c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tyw9WGlB8JqK-lhs4Xtk6Twg4jo>
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: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:49:52 -0000

On Sat., 29 Jun. 2019, 02:32 Philip Homburg, <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
wrote:

> >Hairpin'ing all traffic through the advertising router when L=0 seems like
> >the only general solution.  But, I can imagine many situations where if a
> >Neighbour Cache entry somehow existed, then it could be used.
>
> Note that the router may send redirects. So in theory it is only the
> first packet to a neighbor that needs to go through the router.
>


You'd have to switch them off in this case,.

That has also been a common thing to do in IPv4 in general. I can't exactly
remember why, because it is so long ago that I learned to do it, however I
expect it is to stop packets being punted to the control plane for redirect
generation. Non-optimal forwarding or dropping, in particular in forwarding
hardware, is cheaper than optimal forwarding and control plane load of
generating redirects. It also probably creates a control plane DoS attack
vector.


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