IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 21 November 2025 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 22A258E468B4 for <snac@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 12:58:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=sandelman.ca
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 JXJueKEk8RLj for <snac@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 12:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16B088E468A6 for <snac@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 12:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B219C18014; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:58:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id AyounK5ffgVi; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:58:12 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1763758692; bh=hsv0mxFLReQ2u7w/VFdXjthSoIdecwUAkIGd1giEoNk=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=LKKTXbCGK6zO9FOnvrkW9n7bM2Zy/3PEXZXYhcIvrMejrd+Z4JFaim9h1cBTTLki7 w56UGFGt3tlsbYIuQpditlGUSP+bp7M0hSQbVSNWnAfh+9vRQKU5X4VKFA8DTcLNPW TUcCpv8Oa3DuCW1klt9rID6QWX4ZvFmgd+zVCzrxsFwVxw/9Fg47Afnv7sfvVt1mGi LPyn4UBqAPWF4CLVO2OP753yNH3xVEHsH4MC4AxPvnOonEkCxYYvgFNe5sU2D33/WG UCsrcb5O+KzN+DjI7L2V7tvfm5qx8+D+V/VAp9TqXUNUjjmc1FVjpkAmZr/Z9hHetM jwIV/Sh4xDxbg==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D40318012; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:58:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388F21B8; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:58:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, snac@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <8F59C774-ACC7-48A8-AE5B-768EE1A5DFC2@fugue.com>
References: <13441f45-57bf-48ea-9814-4d65214113a7@iotconsultancy.nl> <19398.1763653578@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <B0424C42-F02D-42B1-8A1B-A2EFB8F97F13@fugue.com> <15765.1763679273@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5fbfe856-182d-4eaa-8dac-2fbe271ceb2e@iotconsultancy.nl> <838A5057-520F-4525-BA78-1BC48910F299@fugue.com> <21046.1763753344@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <8F59C774-ACC7-48A8-AE5B-768EE1A5DFC2@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:58:12 -0500
Message-ID: <13178.1763758692@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: XHQ6KPHIM4RIKNLG4VTRP5AJN2JTVKIU
X-Message-ID-Hash: XHQ6KPHIM4RIKNLG4VTRP5AJN2JTVKIU
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
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
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/pH0VGUis2L8WVNNJI5KOAX5dSEI>
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>

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    >> Agreed: This might have been done by an incompetent ISP.
    >> So in this case, we need enough text for an end-user to hit them over the head.

    > I don't think we can require that the ISP not disable SLAAC, but
    > realistically if they do they are going to get a lot of phone
    > calls. Well, assuming the end user cares about IPv6.

The situation we should be anticipating is a finger-pointing among a SNAP
Router manufacturer, a small-office operator and the ISP.

We just need clear enough text that tells the ISP that they are being an
idiot.  Or for the ISP/SNAP Router to say that the small-office "security"
consultant is being an idiot :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

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