IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 03 November 2020 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 831D13A110E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:56:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kv1Rx0KRtekJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 D66963A110C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:56:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0A3JuW8l041172 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:56:32 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 82DCB20952D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:56:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FCE20937B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:56:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.242.16] ([10.11.242.16]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0A3JuWrC001927 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:56:32 +0100
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <160409793214.22613.15041785352190993395@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAJhXr98mPsopQrUiKfXGuN+wxSEtNiP00LBEGrYObz62FHSa_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1LTcVKobDpiEjnxqKbX9drz1od+RNg7EdX_WO04JQgUw@mail.gmail.com> <49DFF195-CB76-4575-BA29-F134F99D6EE1@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2tUg7GZcne1SkgZZYHJ3Prr=F3hMRDTAZ2=H+UgK2FWg@mail.gmail.com> <3FF78364-0435-4BF5-9027-B4E330FBB49A@gmail.com> <CABNhwV1ud9inX4h2RuDGNLS9tpmikRORSdGdhtoE0qWEEOnN+Q@mail.gmail.com> <F11E6E48-D317-49CC-B2BE-39FAADCC8B27@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <089c05d3-bbf7-35ca-6685-bdfb2cb1e079@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 20:56:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F11E6E48-D317-49CC-B2BE-39FAADCC8B27@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/-h_T-CuWjdZ4danI3O9pAKFJ0Kk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 19:56:37 -0000


Le 03/11/2020 à 20:14, Bob Hinden a écrit :
> Gyan,
> 
>> On Nov 2, 2020, at 10:28 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bob
>>
>> In-line
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:10 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What Lorenzo said.
>>
>> Further, I did quick read and see some immediate issues.
>>
>> First off SLACC works just fine with any size prefix/interface ID.    The protocol supports different sized prefixes/IIDs.   The purported issue relates to interface ID sizes.   These drafts appear to be confused about that.
>>
>>     Gyan> Understood that SLAAC in itself does not create the restriction as the 64 bit boundary restriction is due to 64 bit IID fixed length when A flag is set.
> 
> Good, then I suggest you stop calling it a SLAAC problem.*

We struggled during internal discussions about what to call it so that 
it gets better through.

Indeed, the SLAAC spec is independent of the prefix length.

However, SLAAC spec needs IP-over-foo specs to give an IID.  And these 
latter are all 64bit len.  Indirectly, this makes that SLAAC forms GUAs 
with only a 64bit plen.

Maybe one would be ok to call it and _indirect_ SLAAC-GUA problem?

(I formulated yesterday a longer email explaining this in more detail 
but I hold it in my Drafts folder, and I restrain)

Alex

> 
>>     The 6man draft below identifies the solution and references the last time this topic came up about a year or so ago with this draft "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-05"
>>     This draft submitted on 6man discusses the history behind the slaac 64 bit fixed iid and refrences the v6ops draft problem statement and defines the RA flag solution for slaac to support vlsm & eliminating the IID fixed 64 bit boundary.
> 
> I, and I suspect most of the working group, are very aware of the history and background on this topic.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email