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

joel jaeggli <> Fri, 10 November 2017 05:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF6712EB04; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 21:57:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OQVbwxuRB8ET; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 21:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B7A12EB02; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 21:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb.local ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vAA5vZfl012463 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:57:36 GMT (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be mb.local
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Fernando Gont <>, Erik Kline <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>,
References: <> <> <>
From: joel jaeggli <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:57:28 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/56.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:57:40 -0000

On 11/9/17 16:05, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 11/09/2017 12:02 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
>> I don't think we should be recommending unique RAs per device where
>> the devices are all on a shared link.
> Agreed.
> And if we were to do it, we should be recommending this in a 6man
> document, not v6ops.
>> My understanding was that in the original motivating wifi deployment
>> every node is effectively isolated in its own (pseudo)VLAN, and
>> node-to-node traffic must be routed through the infrastructure (to the
>> extent such a thing can actually be enforced in a medium like wifi).
> Describing the virtues of one prefix per node, or how isolating nodes
> (no "on link prefix") or the like are all fine for an informational
> document, or even as a BCP (if that's how the wg feels).

there is an available recourse to an onlink prefix in form of the
link-local address for a deligated prefix.

   Or, optionally in some cases, a
   solicited RA response could be sent unicast to the link-local address
   of the subscriber as detailed in RFC4861

> Specifying hacks to SLAAC which require modification to the SLAAC router
> code (you certainly need to hack e.g. radvd quite a lot to implement
> this) or add additional requirements to SLAAC (like the requirement of a
> data structure that contains mappings of Prefix_leased -> MAC_address)
> is std track work that should be done in 6man, and with a document
> flagged as "std track", not bcp.