Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Mon, 06 March 2017 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 0BD6D1294EE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:19:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 vlRGhY059jZU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (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 88282129497 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id v190so26129922pfb.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:19:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=yv8rMFrM3YJtTELNoQlHLVvxCMjALUM3b5UFrBNGZdE=; b=A2tqMTkmCNy2/aJjexU3So3bjDcNxZas/tOGYUl5u56LUaHImbeC4jkIqIfvr11MUc 9/t607T9Dq8Y/IfULJ7myD+pF25qreABCA6pQqjlLPjpQtSap/GvXzkRtOuuf18nD08r WjRg3P9BaCxGiWAOYbVHL+B4ic/O16rRS9Iopno42lqfa78ldr2MjmJvrNp/omRcfU19 ClGqRAaWGBIzax8hcvjBKIibUDB7TBS7jhD2ZAeAK1Yzsl+BhE3klmPLPS/rBM6mM/db IijyEE1sjmx2hWtOELDGR1YEbHL19yS0tCZMRTrXt4+CW9Sow3zxn3mtyeID/0hVxy/6 lHrg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=yv8rMFrM3YJtTELNoQlHLVvxCMjALUM3b5UFrBNGZdE=; b=N+RG1qmG049bW2XTKru1mSRFOCAyXDT9lJM5G3JGNUT6s9QW8U6VO/7lQDAHVJE/Fk YMER/DpA3XJIx8arE+lor41hbJNTDurFOVpVBXBZdEc4Z/8xQHy1hgp3ZoH0d+V/H5p+ cofBpkBRtq9TTwuHWjumsIPUYH3bMvibCDGnfpB27dWyF8IfB8umUPJzBZ9M8li6CZVe td9w/WjBhKBMt5C0Son2akawxFyg+pBwLXP4Y7sXbMHgxYB0LE78czWNkCKUvx0hQQxg IbwPb5yDpXnWV7knYTcMwr6twuX2FblfErZjcbuhriyIyyxn7+cTluefGtKT5QdowN3h nopg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m/uCkuDTCjuQLIgvphcJglHxh+qKSL+Z7Ezd4v+ffeP+c7qYDn9aZxN7AkbILRtUBZ
X-Received: by 10.98.252.211 with SMTP id e202mr22255005pfh.118.1488820758960; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q194sm40726047pfq.43.2017.03.06.09.19.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:19:18 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_65693B11-08D9-4435-A259-9568F5ACAA0F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:19:26 -0800
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com> <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Message-Id: <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/v6Z5iuckMKUf_drmfeW8uCx-5uk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 17:19:21 -0000

On Mar 4, 2017, at 01:15, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com>; wrote:
> [I wrote:]
>> If you send me a Prefix Length other than 64 bits, then I'm gonna ignore it. Just as RFC 4862 commands.
> 
> I find this confusing, you are ignoring an onlink prefix because of auto configuration? […]


I found it confusing at first too, but the RFC 2119 keyword language in RFC 4862 is pretty unambiguous, and it makes sense too if you think about PIO updates that only change the lifetimes and the value of the A flag. The requirement to drop all PIO with invalid prefix length for the link type, regardless of the A flag, ensures with a simple-to-implement rule that you never take a misconfigured prefix as on-link if you cannot ever auto-configure an address in the prefix when the update to A=1 arrives.

This may not be the behavior you’d prefer that RFC 4862 require, but the requirement is clearly there and certification tests are within their ambit to check for it. Moreover, this proposed successor to RFC 4291 doesn’t even have an informative reference to RFC 4862 in it, much less an explicitly declared update. And I don’t believe it should.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>