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

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 10 November 2017 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@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 40E4B129484; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 20:13:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 JbaqCvmiCt4r; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 20:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x243.google.com (mail-wr0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::243]) (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 F0940129434; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 20:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x243.google.com with SMTP id j23so7467661wra.9; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 20:13:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=dfXVue50ov+ByiI9kYRUmGSWUlCBE01/sTFXW+aWf60=; b=XTN7FqQI46BZDjhtf9T7F7sGNJKe7JQ6oQvn2lu0v8kLM7jw0GpDM4NC5Hnbp0gFDb R+LJ1HQpJe/hW201lY1xTprzbHE1329NxvH80EPs8g1IZlEWype3ryVGbW6VDnu8lP4G 2YJpydEPcmz1Rhtt2CVG3Wp5aOb83tclqCRiIdmfFuxzRVEkj3DupsUt9o+LJAnLxDaP iQOwAm0w/g67zEQrcO9ShlnbUCvxlmOI/nbfkgijWfkEY2lCce92cepJ6uIv1Vm2fORo khG7c3Yq7hebYKo0ctAju3ZDntjs/AvY2Eb5WM2TNFuuKBATBrR6BbrS+I5s8a66vHz5 xAAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=dfXVue50ov+ByiI9kYRUmGSWUlCBE01/sTFXW+aWf60=; b=gMjyiUPP2ubaXkpUuuotc5wwE/+wO3SrGTRSDzBnN39e6rU4sbg//2xTELEFcgnxui AWh7shqnmKUcQM4WpgrgSKxelFetBXjg6tOG8X/uZUvFyzO6Es9y80P+IRZGfGiSJT+J WyUn33xouOJyP7DezIb0L6n5JLiDEfZfqalOAn4VaFUSKQdHrVuaYuu5NSb5W9eLrvNl gBZy6mwxOhN1t50mHKm7t6N+oFEflVM1YYS+m6aQP679rhHC44/Rtt1B22p755AbhFb1 OJj1k4zb9vkdCRdiOWziUmfcRVWDgszKvPMDkvVTPBwVWQfwCKgX8XfhR4rdyM5gnGhq M7sA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7jv1eNqoypHaH1n52CutJNWMIYLkldbLStMNg0RpqeVheNRD3F CuihIRs3f2+CfDlmeFXLXRg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QcuOUaNQtq4wIs5OCxO8tPRbl8bo0fey2cXTBnCNiBHFX9KgvTtGgVS7BbulhCAwuqqpbpvA==
X-Received: by 10.223.163.216 with SMTP id m24mr2066632wrb.107.1510287200539; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 20:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 198.66.20.149.in-addr.arpa (198.66.20.149.in-addr.arpa. [149.20.66.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b81sm250629wmh.16.2017.11.09.20.13.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Nov 2017 20:13:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BBB987EF-D91C-4FD1-9084-21382F24E7BF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_541A7649-77F5-444B-923D-C903D28468D7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.11\))
Subject: Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:42:31 +0530
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "6man-ads@tools.ietf.org" <6man-ads@ietf.org>, "v6ops-ads@ietf.org" <v6ops-ads@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host@tools.ietf.org
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0_a2Qm8U4oK+BQU57DeDUD9i-o_+G+YhnH4pVXRxmxxQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/xeg4pnZXJStmopjNsJDrlhmvzFs>
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 04:13:24 -0000


> On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>; wrote:
> While reviewing this document a few days ago, I found that Section 4
> (page 5) contains what is a protocol spec, rather than an operational
> BCP. It contains rules regarding how to set the link-layer address (to a
> unicast address) for IPv6 multicasted RAs, and how a SLAAC router should
> now remember which prefix has been "leased" to which node -- something
> that seems to be way outside of the v6ops charter, and that should have
> been done in 6man, instead.
> 
> I don't see how this is a protocol change. Sending RAs unicast is already allowed by RFC 4861, so this is just an operational practice.

I understand the concern to be sending to a multicast address at the network layer and a unicast address at the link layer. If 4861 allows the RA to be sent unicast, it is probably unicast at both layers. I suspect that if we change to doing what 4861 describes we'll be fine.