Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 28 January 2021 00:16 UTC
Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 C78E23A0E21; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:16:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 xvKSZtihpz7F; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:16:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38FB83A0E1D; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:69a9:e23f:a699:f848] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:69a9:e23f:a699:f848]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 74DF228395A; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:16:19 +0000 (UTC)
To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, suresh@kaloom.com, jiangsheng@huawei.com
References: <160336543195.21161.17851078775777074492@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <bae28190-9537-fed0-be43-9d1e1344c9b9@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 21:15:47 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <160336543195.21161.17851078775777074492@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/52C9nlWVPfVqyKgf6Hq5Ef_IW5c>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:16:44 -0000
Hi, Eric, It seems that I somehow failed to respond to your message in time. My apologies for that. IN-line.... On 22/10/20 08:17, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote: [...] > -- Abstract -- > I wonder why the word "IPv6" is never mentioned in the abstract while the whole > document is about IPv6. OTOH, perhaps the default IP version in 2020 is indeed > IPv6 ;-) I've know included it :-) > -- Section 3 -- > Should the L-13 of RFC 7084 be also updated ? Briefly discussed in section 3.3 Good grief. My take is that requirement L-13 is replaced with what's requirement L-17 in our document. So, maybe in Section 3 we should say: "Requirement L-13 from RFC7084 is replaced with: o L-13: CE routers MUST signal stale configuration information as specified in Section 3.3. And the renumber (! :-) ) our list, so the current L-18 becomes L-17? > I wonder what is the actual structure of this section? There are 4 L-XX > requirements followed by 3 subsections and mapping between L-15 with section > 3.1 and the same for L-16, L-17 but not for L-18 ? That's correct. Sections 3.1-3.3 essentially spell out the details for reqs L-15-17. There's no much more to add, but, for the sake of consistency we could add a short Section 3.4 with something like: ---- cut here ---- 3.4. Automatic DHCPv6 RELEASEs Some CE Routers are known to automatically CE send DHCPv6-PD RELEASE messages upon reboot events. However, this may inadvertently trigger a flash-renumbering scenario, along with the associated problems discussed in [draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum], that this document tries to mitigate. As a result, L-18 specifies that CE routers SHOULD NOT automatically send DHCPv6-PD RELEASE messages upon reboot events. ---- cut here ---- ? > As noted in section 3.1, L-13 is actually Section 6.3 of [RFC8415] that is > standard track How about changing: * The recommendations in this section expand from requirement L-13 in Section 4.3 of [RFC7084]. to * The recommendations in this section expand from requirement L-13 in Section 4.3 of [RFC7084] and Section 6.3 of [RFC8415]. ? > > -- Section 3.2 -- > There is a reference to section 2.1 of this document but the authors probably > meant section 3.1 of this document or Section 6.3 of [RFC8415]. Yep. Good grief! Fixed. > Should the list of ND options include by default all options ? or at least > indicate that this is not an exhaustive list to allow for future ND options ? The thing is that not all options have lifetimes. (TBH, I just looked at https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-5 , and probably many of them wouldn't even apply). So I'd leave "as is", or add a parenthetical note right after the second paragraph of Section 3.2 that says: NOTE: We note that the above text refers to the Neighbor Discovery Options that may typically be employed by CE Routers. A CE Router may need to apply the same policy for setting the lifetime of other Neighbor Discovery options it may employ, if and where applicable. ? > -- Section 3.3 -- > I agree with "IPv6 network renumbering is expected to take place in a planned > manner," but this sentence seems to contradict the premisses of > draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum. Unsure how to reconciliate the two I-D (sharing > some authors ;-) ). At least in my mental model, the two documents are reconciliated as follows: "IPv6 network renumbering is expected to take place in a planned manner. Now, welcome to the real world" :-) > " since we acknowledge " suggest to slightly rewrite this sentence to make it > less personal. Done. > Suggestion to mention whether RA are sent only on received RS, multicasted > immediately (the document mention periodically), or unicasted when possible > (some CPE keeps the mapping of all its unicast client notably on the Wi-Fi > side). That's a good point. I wonder how to do it without getting into too much detail that might e.g. override good possible behavior such as the one you describe. I wonder if we should add to this sentence: "The aforementioned advertisement SHOULD be performed for at least the "Valid Lifetime" previously employed for such prefix." Something like: "The CE Router MUST advertise this information with unsolicited Router Advertisements as described in Section 6.2.4 of [RFC4861]. A CE Router MAY advertise this information via unicast Router Advertisement, when possible and applicable" My rationale is that the unsolicted RAs are the catch-all case. Whereas the unicasted RAs are desirable. Thoughts? Thanks! Regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [v6ops] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-v… Fernando Gont