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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 5300B129A84 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:57:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 WxyOeg333aAJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:57:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (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 5056E129ABE for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id r127so9621524itb.5 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:57:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hY/VbeZfB+A/COXAiLofQgw97/lbhtfwPWXLrTlmY7Y=; b=zapdb6b59Td2VcFc57kBBhS1367fs2eX0BIZR6bOHFpP2/kwAlH3536fMrgSNsLlWa PtOTNmjnioIR8dqMaexKNmo95IVfdKCECvrqkSkR1LurOrSnz7UTeTTw0juYDwMauF6b 54lrrMUFbsJqj1I/QnHgjaWtSh1OPmrzJqFyJFl63n2V9Qx4v+TSswNFUbrCyq7k1aff 6C2scu9G/OKxKdWB/Rbx/pW8smE5N87/Zw3MlTi5yszDRqEogEMkAOcaxgVcrQG+QH4u 3cTBY8hetaYzUDnzpF3LFPVYS7rxBbISSPBLGW7QZ/mdLuoMBl/V8R+OiOy3SkQXQpSS nWEw==
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=hY/VbeZfB+A/COXAiLofQgw97/lbhtfwPWXLrTlmY7Y=; b=g38rol+BSrdqOVaJ9b8vX81WVuzivwzZtyRFTv0/VLrbmzcUiamdGmdKhn7VWfyVQ4 wRm6RYmtW3PiCo/xMxsfGDRt6+qeyG3vKFk4oVhXHuYwWKOtcgJZRrJF1FjD9rhXaMwa Y97d5KhDGrag2rQB1bS9y3AB1EPv4B0/vkhkAUHsSKq25E4kvvA1Qua8znIALHUO5vw1 +/T3MPEsMZ8KE0JUeMNq1zxrSqtSuPVhNLYf2KNdfJ0RgrX7vjFf40wFM0NQYCE0vTGh w2GW8sbJ6TukfqPNqa8/Fxu755wUh5MgnjAVaJWQmylFIoyFhYa5pjf077tBM6XSBVfa lmNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX54Z2fn1G5swXv4CKadn93WiooLYaVD7GqOUoUGZQUmitlcesHP p7GCuM+fx4k16jaj8b41hIHoPkJKDFvb7/5kJTuTkw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbTbcRgVzkOvj4gmHYtg6RhH0gq0QIYnzlD7QQM4FdF/cTtTt/5eFesJzU5T0ps/QkcM2LWlTWj7WKoGtflJJg=
X-Received: by 10.36.76.7 with SMTP id a7mr6171776itb.35.1510585071562; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:57:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.15.203 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:57:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.79.15.203 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:57:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <d8c7dd2e-821c-b2ec-583f-92c42af55ae3@si6networks.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com> <e40697ca-8017-c9d2-c25d-89087046c9cf@gmail.com> <207f040a-7fe2-9434-e7a5-f546b26fdf63@strayalpha.com> <CAKD1Yr26NK2osApYZBm8Yd=0X7xcetrxojp6=JHOEAu9BB0q8A@mail.gmail.com> <8ca59610-2d25-2be4-9d2c-9b1a75fd3ace@si6networks.com> <E67105A3-396B-403C-B741-E9E01CFB5CE7@employees.org> <e7ec4633-8d45-1cff-ce37-48dafd488e13@si6networks.com> <BBAB48C0-384B-4380-9359-7965C7C61D58@employees.org> <4b7e8e53-ea7a-f84d-92cf-a9a113c200ce@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1NG93Jv7E6hKY4BKApwJg6uG0wAgUL74cw1Fb5VsKnUg@mail.gmail.com> <14d489ec-0b28-8fe5-e28c-35a1f4fc15de@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaPb8vOxfUVk-6sQNGpftegPCgb+j3OyGD55rmCado+VZw@mail.gmail.com> <a4a380b0-d69c-1c2c-fedc-0a3da2a8060a@si6networks.com> <CAJc3aaPg=qOpiwJ29Bq92m2RfZ-VDJtLWb-GgZV7bXP6iELiRA@mail.gmail.com> <d86e4678-7634-5574-3151-056fe92602aa@si6networks.com> <CAPt1N1=qM7kk_NQcm=ibnhv6gf_+JGkUyww6KCMOQ4Lsr8Ttdg@mail.gmail.com> <d8c7dd2e-821c-b2ec-583f-92c42af55ae3@si6networks.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:57:50 +0800
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1n2U=qhsrwF4xgWsw1QkW4-5RdRxH3-vgmNjgi3b4vFCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11448c1297fd95055dde7e92"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zIDVZwlevRY_7GhC7xPZ5IY91NI>
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:57:59 -0000

It doesn't make slaac stateful.

On Nov 13, 2017 22:55, "Fernando Gont" <fgont@si6networks.com>; wrote:

> Ted,
>
> On 11/13/2017 10:31 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > Fernando, the document is in AUTH48. If there is a technical problem
> > with it that is sufficient to pull it out of the publication queue at
> > this point, I haven't heard it yet. I think it would be nice to add a
> > little advice on how to manage the state, but it's up to the authors to
> > do this or not. This discussion is getting a bit old.
>
> The technical problem is that this is a v6ops document making SLAAC
> stateful. As discussed, making SLAAC stateful brings breakage scenarios
> not present in SLAAC, and that is certainly not a minor change.
>
> And having folks noted that they have implemented this sort of behavior
> without changing SLAAC, the low-level protocol details in Section 4 are
> even less unwarranted.
>
> It is not my call what's the proper action. But I do note that this is
> yet another BCP that rather that essentially disregards work of other wg
> (dhc), unnecessarily. Are you are pushing a BCP with a mechanism that is
> so underspecified, that folks meaning to implement this are likely to
> introduce breakage.
>
> That said, it is not my call what's the proper action to follow. My
> intent (noted to e.g. Suresh off-line) is not to obstruct the document,
> but to avoid breakage -- particularly when it's unwarranted.
>
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
>