RE: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Information in Router Advertisement (RA) Messages
Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Thu, 09 June 2022 15:45 UTC
Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 2BE7FC15AACB; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 08:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 x6-W9ZVV1Wxb; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 08:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23BDFC15AAC6; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 08:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LJpH95ZxVz67x9g; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 23:41:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by fraeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:45:10 +0200
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 18:45:10 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 18:45:10 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Information in Router Advertisement (RA) Messages
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Information in Router Advertisement (RA) Messages
Thread-Index: AQHYe9drwJMJuHbSY0+HxAicV2izeK1HN7iQ
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 15:45:10 +0000
Message-ID: <07637e195f2b43d7a38890ca697e91eb@huawei.com>
References: <971cee77-6cf5-513f-c72b-458b1f0b581c@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <971cee77-6cf5-513f-c72b-458b1f0b581c@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.207.82.129]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/u1eWyI9wmNmvJaG_vyixgn-KbZk>
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: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 15:45:23 -0000
Hi Fernando, How long host should wait next/last RA to make sure that all information was received? To start deprecating prefixes. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 11:03 AM To: ipv6@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum@ietf.org Subject: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Information in Router Advertisement (RA) Messages Hi, Section 4.4 of draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum-03 contains a "[TBD]" placeholder for text that had not yet been incorporated from the individual submission version of the document (draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum). We'd like to hear from you regarding whether you have any thoughts or objections about incorporating the following text for Section 4.4: ---- cut here ---- 4.4. Conveying Information in Router Advertisement (RA) Messages Intentionally omitting information in Router Advertisements may prevent the propagation of such information, and may represent a challenge for hosts that need to infer whether they have received a complete set of SLAAC configuration information. As a result, this section aims that, to the extent that is possible, RA messages contain a complete set of SLAAC information. This document replaces the following text from Section 6.2.3 of [RFC4861]: A router MAY choose not to include some or all options when sending unsolicited Router Advertisements. For example, if prefix lifetimes are much longer than AdvDefaultLifetime, including them every few advertisements may be sufficient. However, when responding to a Router Solicitation or while sending the first few initial unsolicited advertisements, a router SHOULD include all options so that all information (e.g., prefixes) is propagated quickly during system initialization. If including all options causes the size of an advertisement to exceed the link MTU, multiple advertisements can be sent, each containing a subset of the options. with: When sending Router Advertisements, a router SHOULD include all options. If including all options would cause the size of an advertisement to exceed the link MTU, multiple advertisements can be sent, each containing a subset of the options. In all cases, routers SHOULD convey all information using the smallest possible number of packets. and try to convey options of the same type in the same packet. RATIONALE: * Sending information in the smallest possible number of packets was somewhat already implied by the original text in [RFC4861]. Including all options when sending RAs leads to simpler code (as opposed to dealing with special cases where specific information is intentionally omitted), and also helps hosts infer when they have received a complete set of SLAAC configuration information. Note that while [RFC4861] allowed some RAs to omit some options, to the best of the authors' knowledge, all SLAAC router implementations always send all options in the smallest possible number of packets. Therefore, this section simply aligns the protocol specifications with existing implementation practice. ---- cut here ---- Thanks! Regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Informatio… Fernando Gont
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Inform… Ted Lemon
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Inform… Fernando Gont
- RE: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Inform… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Inform… Fernando Gont
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Inform… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Inform… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Inform… Fernando Gont
- RE: draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum: Conveying Inform… Vasilenko Eduard