IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-hui-stub-router-ra-flag-02

Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Wed, 17 April 2024 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
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 1B99EC14F6A3 for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5YRVU7RSOX6z for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98B80C14F710 for <snac@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:ef34:0:ff:fe00:65]) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 43HJJGQB191781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:19:16 +0200
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 43HJIwL0014808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:18:59 +0200
Received: (from auerswal@localhost) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id 43HJIwOd014806; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:18:58 +0200
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:18:58 +0200
From: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: SNAC ML <snac@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20240417191858.GA9875@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
References: <DU0P190MB1978A6D7BBCE565E0C9018F7FD2C2@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <DU0P190MB1978D701C90820D8DB97CCEDFD332@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <46119458-8B82-4DE0-A5BC-C58F64436FDB@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mXSPR=7XwyobZhOSZppFohjJd-8DirqM6QFYihQXbvDQ@mail.gmail.com> <DU0P190MB1978F520A848CB9F32AA2385FD082@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAPt1N1=c5_GHXqqGFzTKrRdg9x1wOgq7Vw=Q0+FsyTHEgSQS8A@mail.gmail.com> <20240417114328.GA18918@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> <CAPt1N1=eyR6f_5UOn2N3g79QyJcur4jw18MJiCy34vMBu9O1SA@mail.gmail.com> <20240417141618.GA5099@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> <CAPt1N1=2Zqw9rSV0F-Mr1+888ht8-_F_Ykg_hABw6h=JJKHZBA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=2Zqw9rSV0F-Mr1+888ht8-_F_Ykg_hABw6h=JJKHZBA@mail.gmail.com>
Author: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/vrPaKRWY5WS6vIfFFF7bbrd_zAQ>
Subject: Re: [Snac] M/O Bit reflection behavior of draft-hui-stub-router-ra-flag-02
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 19:19:09 -0000

Hi Ted,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:25:42AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 
> The behavior of the M and O bits isn’t defined anywhere.  Modern
> hosts have had to adapt to this.  During the discussions we had in
> Brisbane the consensus was that they do now handle inconsistent M&O
> bits correctly.

If the handling is not defined, no handling is incorrect.  But SNAC could
describe how exactly hosts need to handle it to be compatible with SNAC.
This would at least allow to troubleshoot the breakage.

Alternatively, SNAC could refrain from sending RAs onto a managed link
to prevent incompatibilities leading to problems.

Alternatively, SNAC could make an honest effort to adapt to managed links,
even if this does not work in all possible cases, and document the known
problems in a section on operational considerations.

Br,
Erik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email