IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Snac] draft-ietf-snac-simple-01 review comments

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 19 May 2023 14:02 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 4EA52C14CEF9; Fri, 19 May 2023 07:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 3uj8Wjr7nHki; Fri, 19 May 2023 07:02:03 -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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA179C15152E; Fri, 19 May 2023 07:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DAA3898C; Fri, 19 May 2023 10:21:20 -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 Q1CN0ocsUVuu; Fri, 19 May 2023 10:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:40a:34ff:fe10:f571]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42CF3898B; Fri, 19 May 2023 10:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1684506079; bh=y3crlh/0283GnJCig4q0GXH+yzoVE5zDshkHjZEqimE=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=GCSdqEUXI0oA/dIASTewlG60LNltc9Lg9SiUSS7Ag3BZDk+RzgfH1o6wfqA96txKS Cj1jTCSd+Feo0DThLCRsQN4tURGvj4TX/WW3fOUIY5x65+4BYcUKrov2lXqSwq+K2u 3vdzFR5BwUUC7OP181ZCrn9xsz71k95Mrbv0rhw/5tEJoc78P9yG61QlGJq78X26gH lwchEJ/xn8XcFgo5bBzWOwSBW6IwG0jcgeuCyWw2aBQDTmXSxMfRwDO5LUSbJSSQwU GNmiPgCknaLgzsRMbnr7hEIQgdP5pLK3KQKWg9Q7vu+QIaWizU/o3IubbP49JCOnfO 2qo+ucdFwbzsA==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8D23CF; Fri, 19 May 2023 10:01:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: "draft-ietf-snac-simple.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-snac-simple.authors@ietf.org>, "snac@ietf.org" <snac@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BL1PR11MB5366C82D3ECC50F851E4EC9DC87F9@BL1PR11MB5366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BL1PR11MB5366C82D3ECC50F851E4EC9DC87F9@BL1PR11MB5366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
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: Fri, 19 May 2023 10:01:59 -0400
Message-ID: <19968.1684504919@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/vh7do-G0igZQ0OZ95RJreX5r_QU>
Subject: Re: [Snac] draft-ietf-snac-simple-01 review comments
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: Fri, 19 May 2023 14:02:07 -0000

Thank you for looking into SNAC documents!

Darren Dukes \(ddukes\) <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > 2 – Section 5.1.2.4 – doesn’t account for receipt of multiple prefixes,
    > is there a reason for that? It seems to say any prefix received that is
    > not equal to the currently advertised prefix results in
    > STATE-DEPRICATING or changes in the advertising on the stub network.

Also I just thought as I read this, what if the prefix length on a prefix changes?
I am thinking of a situation where a process and/or human inadvertedly
advertises the entire /56 that they got from upstream, and then changes their
mind, fixes things and advertises only the :0::/64 of it.

    > 4 – Section 5.2.3 mentions “cloud services will not be reachable via
    > IPv6”.  How is this relevant to DHCPv6 PD? Is it more accurate to say
    > “any address outside the stub network will not be reachable via IPv6”?

Both are accurate, but the former is more clearly a reminder to IoT device people.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email