Re: [netmod] ipv6 config parameters

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 14 November 2011 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FB321F84D8 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:17:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.176
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g4y-OShAn82r for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E16021F8F54 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C465720CF5; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:14:52 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6TobVcWTJ_cp; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:14:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A3120CF3; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:14:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3A1A51BB3587; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:14:34 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:14:34 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Message-ID: <20111114091433.GA17181@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <20111114.093601.320467224258500807.mbj@tail-f.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111114.093601.320467224258500807.mbj@tail-f.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] ipv6 config parameters
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:17:44 -0000

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 09:36:01AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here are two issues for the draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg document.
> 
> 
> RFC 4862 (IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration) states:
> 
>    A node MUST allow the following autoconfiguration-related variable to
>    be configured by system management for each multicast-capable
>    interface:
> 
>      DupAddrDetectTransmits
> 
> Should we add this leaf to our data model?

If RFC 4862 says so...
 
> RFC 4861 (Neighbor Discovery in IPv6) states:
> 
>    A router MUST allow for the following conceptual variables to be
>    configured by system management.
> 
>      <list of a handful of config params>
> 
> Should we add these variables to our data model, conditional on an
> if-feature?    They are present in the IP-MIB.

The question here is what is in scope of this work and what is out of
scope. Are we limiting this data model to the configuration of
interfaces or do we include things happening on routers, like the
configuration of routing advertisements. In fact, if we take a broad
definition of the scope, we will have to work through

draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11.txt

and all the mandatory stuff it references. And also 4941 comes into my
mind and there is ongoing work on source address selection and even
discussion today how to handle situations where you get potentially
conflicting information via RAs and DHCP. Since it is unlikely that we
will be successful covering everything configurable in the IP layer,
we should in my view have a plan how to put things into manageable
pieces.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>