Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Wed, 08 March 2017 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
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 CB3B71296C2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:54:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
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 cV6v4Ik2cZAT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (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 3D75D129672 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 1so89714462qkl.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:54:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xe3bP0hwgMpyKgEV9+8pOQusuq+6KXeKd2e+hP/q2sk=; b=MmClP3QgQnE9SPLRQtNqy2rlFPgS7ehxL/SHAFnV7pvosg5Bv7Wz6bd/SZTrGW2lCO RhwH6h0eGE2nXwwNQPtJE36VUzCEJkeC4Z+Qet9sjElJp1spEH+tD+h+rxLK/93uJehK vcGx0CNfLD+8TRzECvIe3JGRbFn4VEgqstmH4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xe3bP0hwgMpyKgEV9+8pOQusuq+6KXeKd2e+hP/q2sk=; b=IZqvfye6TxSMTHm/qqv8wVQJyAKuj0KBq5LJ6/Lr1BO+JzPFN3RodkzZUZmG+haSP1 tvVFkaqrakDC5SDbNgqi7jr9/bDzJL/Njeeg8lWQuLRFsXbeqYopx/UM/rpFeMAlkDXo qGEJAj7WaXjhigGRPYpxliTmjPqkGqxcYih1j9LpblFx/ZeKPzM6C3v1GDL/n6QrgP/C 1HPS0N2OiLbM8zMyTB52Sbm39Mx6PLvOLBeofJ+GaTVAhpjXboHT3Pr55+XmDeMU1kdg W0Hl/gwn1O89qJtgAHl7qGZqiSQyX3c0WiBXoLNruhRvnBu6s8IT8XD5WnaiQ7hvVlsO eTww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k6cN5yEAHoLXFqfHGC0ZsuOTvt4S4FX9pe7TNH4QWuI7sW5Hoq/ylHcBNSDwzjQv+CPIVBVVnZcMikli9j
X-Received: by 10.237.36.172 with SMTP id t41mr10204732qtc.142.1489010084912; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:54:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.225 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:54:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9B6D49C1-D793-465B-A395-28147BD22FAC@google.com>
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> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com> <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com> <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com> <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com> <7FAD8D2B-B50E-44C5-AAA3-0C91621D9D54@google.com> <CAOSSMjX4Rq969cTuAU+sqWmW7Rh2-nxjd1vpSkeAevVZTed1HA@mail.gmail.com> <ED8E5513-A522-4D37-A0A2-0960CF3E5394@google.com> <36251EE1-309C-44B5-BEAE-591889492547@employees.org> <9B6D49C1-D793-465B-A395-28147BD22FAC@google.com>
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:54:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOSSMjUy2=yguYh6iMmd6O6d91WrdNEFgo9Gn+4urVp33vug2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f386446aa16054a3f2d2f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yEdWFN3BfANjKZlzSzPNWP2i2p4>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 21:55:00 -0000

Hi James,

Since this was added in the update from RFC 2461 to 4861 I went to go look
for why this was added and found the following thread.

Discussion:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ipv6&q=Requirement+for+64bit+I%2FF+ID&so=date&gbt=1&index=rJtLf5Krh0X9vg3vYts_xO1oUCw

Final Decision:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IfWdv79U0k9PbwK6-lAIk4yeyK4

This is clearly about the spirit of this clarification, the working group
when adding this text wanted to allow prefix lengths much larger then 64
(80 is the example).

~Tim

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:20 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 13:41, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>
> On 7 Mar 2017, at 22:22, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
>
>
> In summary, there is a deficit of RFC 2119 keyword language here, and we
> have to make the case that the standards texts make a sufficiently strong
> implicit case rather than an explicit normative requirement.
>
> As explained above, it sure looks to me like a very fair reading of the
> implicit requirements language is that LwIP is within the limits of RFC
> 4291, RFC 4861 and RFC 4862 when it choose the option of ignoring PIO
> elements with invalid prefix length for IID on the underlying link type.
>
> Yes, the USGv6 and IPv6 Ready Logo tests are well within their rights to
> apply additional requirements beyond the IETF standards, but it seems like
> a strict interpretation of the standards allow for LwIP to claim
> conformance.
>
> How can we counter this argument?
>
>
> We're not writing law, we're specifying what it takes to have
> implementations of a specification interoperate.
>
>
> I agree, and I contend there's something missing here in what we’ve said
> it takes to interoperate.
>
> That implementation would fail to interoperate.
>
>
> As I wrote to the other participants in this exchange off list, I remain
> convinced that the interoperability issue here is due to system
> administrators ignoring the recommendation in RFC 4862 to always use a
> valid Prefix Length for the link type in PIO elements without also ensuring
> that all hosts on the link implement behavior that RFC 4861 implies is
> OPTIONAL for performing on-link determination.
>
> Here I will add that I’m not going to push for changes to LwIP either
> locally or upstream until I’m persuaded this interpretation of the existing
> text is wrong.
>
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR