IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Snac] Re: Why is an AIL prefix with only the "P" flag set suitable?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 18 November 2025 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: snac@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: snac@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EC48BDEABE for <snac@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:39:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue.com header.b="LslSEpu7"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="H5tsQ6cN"
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h7Nd1IYaNs6L for <snac@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fhigh-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.155]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5C08BDEA9E for <snac@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F7F7A0311; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 12:39:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 18 Nov 2025 12:39:24 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1763487564; x=1763573964; bh=GcUQsYAiAF t/m+lU36wybACwtC4lurdk5R4zjIDsH7U=; b=LslSEpu7fli5qGhunlsDyZdRol Z2e8ArVYb/qLtakzDg4RUx2ngcUUjy6h9AmVzNMxrc/B2WD9ZDpIsSDKyRz+9gKT qv1jcfgNc3o4x8hKUtGje0OgCPW3gGPyOA/+GRduWMs0BQ8nRk8YakUXANb4t1da R/lr+VVvolLb7ewS/dxKxA5IGY946aCJDA0QW41hw1Wxljhoqg5NqAvivEmKr4rj ysrkiP7Nv8rfNCIKzna7dChaBD/px2W4S8l6IHEwy2xL4svIdkqmrA2l3hO1Fj1+ wa9pYrUztC9kDjrMBPREB/u/IZBcaOnPJ6SaiI1BwpOJOmndOxzQ1N8hemEw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1763487564; x=1763573964; bh=GcUQsYAiAFt/m+lU36wybACwtC4lurdk5R4 zjIDsH7U=; b=H5tsQ6cNEDxWNmDdLi+s2SDi3ayje9sOoIL4oHtpuSslI84RLpL HW46gp8/Pz0PngwR6nngbarnJs3/BUXSwAd+5uL585iaVXNOmX9tMGNr+VPMIerb ZecNgB4heUhVjAKA297FRyG2sn1b1rmEm54fn1Jt4TttFACPFIb368VkpTdhYNeG RsCv1iVvi0aDYiN8z2zDKgPrboTrbRl4vaOaaUP/R0hA+JaWnyZ+zeqPEvgQPw15 z4tUNnlkd4Ke2IudOWXk7uV/M1olI/QT6CvZfChVPDIcjhRkt++aiuXPDtwRJUn9 8Nmqhb1eVALPf+aQqFCHmmHlpzjdnhENpiw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:S68cafRxD3MRSyoiKYtElNl-ZyrQ1v_xEkg6cxvboC9M_7mRA3mVtw> <xme:S68caVGofCAip286IVO-6xaA1jJ8KkkaH2hdB9hb9y96YSkzhxEj8GfYjeQT26RvS 4Kpiy1K7TkcYYXqpSde0oBMb8lTfQMftKSINtIewr0zcY7x_bCqi7c>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:S68caT8jjRiFIIXvLdZ0sJy11x9HmFAL3sAgtprljRoMm0bLTK35iJPLcfcnNZi2B-BYbNxSPlw5fH00xY-kQ69HsT7xsss08Fi2sw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddvvdduleefucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffktgggufffjgevvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfgvugcunfgv mhhonhcuoehmvghllhhonhesfhhughhuvgdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptd fhgfdtieefgfeludeggffhtdeitdejkeeuudefleffjeeufeekteehveejvdeknecuvehl uhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhgvlhhlohhnse hfuhhguhgvrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeefpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdp rhgtphhtthhopegvshhkohdrughijhhksehiohhttghonhhsuhhlthgrnhgthidrnhhlpd hrtghpthhtohepshhnrggtsehivghtfhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehfuhhrrhihudef sehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:S68caXKTqBPu011-OK6_X_ZQRWLel3d7dUaNqCa9kOXTMIvty0dSSw> <xmx:S68caeY71dCX6YYZBHO7oih3MVPQj_C-MC1TYg-cxGkqjVCdX5LJFg> <xmx:S68caZKobRM8Pjov8HRKRp40zXl-Ao3i5XuYA--Li0zc951hxcQBNQ> <xmx:S68cacBtHThRObd3A1f27NwLmsJ1s1wL16wcpZgLBtUDCDJbs4-mkw> <xmx:TK8cafKC68ERy4CFbDYADDcYY6_qasPFBWKltG2LnAtQd5KfZndgm0dz>
Feedback-ID: i1136489e:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 12:39:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <832B42A8-5FB3-4C59-BE8F-B297A684A46F@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_91F80A5C-D58D-48BC-A048-D83ACB05E609"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.300.41.1.5\))
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 18:39:11 +0100
In-Reply-To: <a24646b5-64b3-45cc-b13b-5688aaa840e4@iotconsultancy.nl>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
References: <13441f45-57bf-48ea-9814-4d65214113a7@iotconsultancy.nl> <55180964-8D25-4B50-96A2-313EC177C2B8@fugue.com> <cd3b0f09-e27b-4b23-9a13-92cd5298782a@iotconsultancy.nl> <09F33D6F-35E6-44D4-8529-DC4E41EEA6A8@fugue.com> <a24646b5-64b3-45cc-b13b-5688aaa840e4@iotconsultancy.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.300.41.1.5)
Message-ID-Hash: IP2NK4LPHXR66JW222HV2SPNXZXVCEVY
X-Message-ID-Hash: IP2NK4LPHXR66JW222HV2SPNXZXVCEVY
X-MailFrom: mellon@fugue.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: snac@ietf.org, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Snac] Re: Why is an AIL prefix with only the "P" flag set suitable?
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussing problems relating to the automatic connection of stub networks to existing infrastructure networks. " <snac.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/gufLAEjxcnydCWFu0oZWXv8hYq4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/snac>
List-Help: <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:snac-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:snac@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:snac-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:snac-leave@ietf.org>

On 18 Nov 2025, at 16:43, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
> (Per my earlier reasoning: If the "A" flag is configured to 0, maybe the intention of the admin/operator is to block such IoT devices? Is that we want to achieve?)

I think we concluded that the 'A' bit being zero isn't a good enough signal of intent. I think the 'P' bit is a clearer signal, because it's not something that's going to get turned on automatically.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status