IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] privacy point re. unsolicited NA / router neighbor cache

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Wed, 24 July 2019 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@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 DEE571200C4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 2T_D2PjeJZfU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3164120150 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id d23so45268212qto.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GuwdEaCODpw2YqPL3tmItN8JDdLNy4XD53hEUd7pnS8=; b=Thn/hIHx4XnsWDPu/vzg1GalZI3A3NLeR7irB3OHd6mPB0or/R+jEqMZOWFTRSuISf eG8Gut1mwlaEY5MIttJfhUmxEOjqxXGPD2ZQbOv0gl5OjuRugxlmjp2JPfJoDxnVbvY8 Z3i9Hipy9ItRGhyLqBgLgAYRht8AWHMFQdA7WUsxMVXJPTdbqmRJJxEKxWwNHXOqUDT1 lHFO3EuZZltIGz5hnP4GOnCTy1xSf0prpqqs2rsRR6O+7qTkQ5/n0H56lqKTzpxLsuWL Jhvy7NeEVCBeVvaMfhnWobswgzyvicMwWCpnGmJNtwproQHVTayHu3BFJghqp22y2OB+ 9xIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GuwdEaCODpw2YqPL3tmItN8JDdLNy4XD53hEUd7pnS8=; b=HKcMFfDurxih+cNFL4kMwj45nvGNLYkvauz96FfGV+RiQPNskYRIr9gBYiFVY9aBCO tOaIRFT9PHo1Ca0n5+nrUX0H/YjCugpodXEL7YgxU981KrlIuSQYfTpcy7a0rxmYFDvP 18hjMKHuEPhTJP6c3kkIaYsScFBCjWd4Zb1GdQJKdPuW5SgMs0mLidXWUi6i12tsn1VN gnbhzLMK5dqEvtyX6d1CYAnwQQ3hLOqv2Q37QYC64l8kh4X548hhdcrcfmX6BFVnaNr2 jg5BloH7sZ/SUagVGI9wFyd8ZUBOdX0LEUbzgVH46Z1pl0t9M9cdEFcz6LNp/mmwnVdo cOtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU8c+dQruyJraVhlM8RqZE7IBB6ai7fuH+qitUGxaVFwJnMC9J3 BajNiZgoRxjJYY+jVQ1wRZSVnRiYyM4nOUGNwAM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxbEPcKsAKAmTvOlQQJTKm8kiopDzNrnfCOke/pPiN9PV7/r8dEVvOWd2V5oMnPvjl3SeP44t7od9s4ZTnYCv8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7104:: with SMTP id z4mr56923804qto.52.1563971160687; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190722213727.GI34551@eidolon.nox.tf> <CAO42Z2zn-V9HrKGDC_api7BE4Sy6jmcrfKR7nbnSrHA5NpxYjQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190723000049.GJ34551@eidolon.nox.tf> <20190723070141.GG60824@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20190723070141.GG60824@Space.Net>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 22:25:49 +1000
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAR+TBu=OCPN4y47oUxcz27VyR3SSpDZ4ERJLiRzAjmZtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1oINoAQKa5wtGV0rzb1jFTyCtHc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] privacy point re. unsolicited NA / router neighbor cache
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:26:03 -0000

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 5:02 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> > 2. is whoever configured multicast competent?
>
> The general assumption for on-link multicast should be "it's broadcast
> or it is getting lost".

I'd disagree with that statement but your experience may vary indeed.
I'll add more text describing different scenarios but off top of my
head using NA has one advantage over DAD:
it reduces probability of disruption in case of address conflicts
(again, for the rare scenario when the rightful owner does not have a
cache entry for some reason).

Ah, as I've said, my experience is that DAD packets have less chances
to get through 'smart' WiFi infrastructure.

> The general idea that on-link multicast is a positive aspect of IPv6
> is nice, but wrong.

I see a subtle difference between 'wrong' and 'not true for every network'.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email