Re: [Snac] Relax the requirement on a single 'root' ULA prefix generated by stub router?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 26 August 2023 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: snac@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: snac@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1645C14CE3F for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Aug 2023 11:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.406 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWW3Fdswo_mM for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Aug 2023 11:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
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 RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3359C14F747 for <snac@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Aug 2023 11:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B543898C; Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:01:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id FNJQdS72A_Ww; Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:01:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493C53898B; Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:01:34 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1693072894; bh=7PSRoc6rY9pNgu2xjQyjS9uH3V1XPbfJm3rQf1JIB+4=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=kD6TUcybQ2YFclIJxNDreY4wlAtGSqNutAXqB3Itol78MzuS5/T98AZ3OjY6ZBOS8 Ad1SZJFwEVuUWHmwkeYUZ8DkQONvobx+yQBLv7teZGld+WzI52bTO7ZSw4ZxYTpPp/ eZoDXfZhTl/ILYhHwoM79Z9DvJ2WaNWUTtU05KuuHlei/MNHfvw3+FG8CvCHR9Fqbh ctLG42d9V/7MoLjcidRlnHYZOr8kkdW29VXrvuouotmuYHrpc9L6kOzkC1RNsVhMn5 +Cw7oVtKX2ogmCjopWkKPmfrJWGBOVvndkNQrLoK7zOaUwqX4y+jelzZ9luy/fkgFM HlTcAH/yfYAOg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A041574; Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:01:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, SNAC List <snac@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230825130805.GA26200@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
References: <DU0P190MB1978F18F16051B3ECEE03159FD12A@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20230810111719.GA13659@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> <20230816092035.GA11872@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> <DU0P190MB197890A2C768BDB86C0632D5FD1DA@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20230825130805.GA26200@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:01:34 -0400
Message-ID: <22401.1693072894@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/vDYqGfbK47OwB4kwY1qeFTzV-x4>
Subject: Re: [Snac] Relax the requirement on a single 'root' ULA prefix generated by stub router?
X-BeenThere: snac@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussing problems relating to the automatic connection of stub networks to existing infrastructure networks. " <snac.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/snac>, <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/snac/>
List-Post: <mailto:snac@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/snac>, <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:01:40 -0000

Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> wrote:
    > The current draft seems to rely exclusively on RFC 4191 type C hosts by
    > advertising stub prefixes as off link on the AIL.

I guess I wish that RFC4191 had summarized type A hosts a bit better, as
fishing into RFC2461 for the precise structure is eluding me right now.
(But, I'm on day 20 of a chronic headache)
Is there a survey of capabilities of presently deployed hosts?

    > Always using a single ULA prefix per stub network, combined with
    > advertising a subnet from this ULA prefix on the AIL as on-link, could
    > be an additional method to also support RFC 4191 type A/B hosts that
    > implement RFC 6724 section 5 rule 5.5.  Such a host would use a ULA
    > from the stub network's prefix as source address, and would use a stub
    > router connected to that sepcific stub network.

In the absense of an IPv6 prefix announced on the AIL (IPv4 only home), this
is essentially what's we'd be doing, right?

In the presence of an IPv6 prefix + DHCPv6-PD on the AIL, then we also can
cope with all host types because the infrastructure router has a route to the
stub network.

It's only when we have partial IPv6 in the home that we get into the trouble
you have described.

    > An explicit requirement for hosts to implement the behavior of RFC 4191
    > type C to work with SNAC would IMHO improve the draft.

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