Re: [v6ops] RFC7934
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 18 July 2017 21:01 UTC
Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 24FC4129B2A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 RdlT5GbTzeEG for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (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 26073126C2F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id o88so10512038pfk.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gyAv1SN8ouKzLkKAiozVT7Q2nymFkFiYQ265MpZ1fTE=; b=uGnZSRDABWq2WWSNII13e5lzowZneIhm5vFNfJmDrvukZSluxkP3g0XVD2Dq3CmHPt /odcyiG/E4zrgnTJZoD9W6kFg1HOfXPE5W7dPni04gD2VJKj/aZ9r0dLzRX417AeJnyn 0s1FhYXjvt7rg8bIlfg57ggJOako4siqa9SifcmVZJx/7bCWri6NcKXxt5A6uaPyVjX+ lVz2JAvNpM+IBPJKuflbKgwBqXbQFF6QqFRiB+8duFZqjjNzCT2PBjN8l9geVoOpSKe9 aSmJTP28ZHYR7n5nO1al+6rE0JyiUMkg0Eofp2umSr3UWRueGevFsqJqHjVeQO4ckcf1 nMiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gyAv1SN8ouKzLkKAiozVT7Q2nymFkFiYQ265MpZ1fTE=; b=hHYPPDKfkQ+3+kBGpqwC3a6jqqOaAH3NEJpLJ/mfaHkfiSIcMMMLFeqsdU8CxskFPt 0U2ElvKHXBCB1NEpk4VAAyoMYi23tgOiZs3hDscV2asnak8+Q+0NiUV8SZUo4FmSD7eI KSpMhKkoOwyYp8+5Idl6i0mBijTobD0D222gR1o9G8Jf7d4Flch0vkpDkeFe6Watnbta yKVdcntz7sLUQBo3XMIxLKZGfgBrc6JLy0joFbtLBlKUxy98r9wYfpjP9Iq02+vPWoWk /1guCjlvDgAa4cT5hq7iprvPurPmiBuNQz3cR99/a88Qv+UvDMUZP3HSbtjvhecd7EQy gQfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110CdxM59yaA62QBEO9H8aER7e0jFYmN8k2Y/qOBRCld+wC7w8H/ o2LITueXgfVLMG873IuqpDAG0hZcszC3
X-Received: by 10.84.231.16 with SMTP id f16mr3732901plk.131.1500411707694; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3d313591-d770-75db-8ce1-973f724d067a@gmail.com>
References: <596CF817.8040900@foobar.org> <CAFU7BAQ5h5dHKmDbOHo9+JCgo+WZpQmctf8F+_0OfJ0dV=tmww@mail.gmail.com> <ef9cc89d-8fbc-47c1-6955-0c005149b13c@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kkqOYGvHAZU8SysX5QkTxy9gTe=o-HsAx1QKaNUNH4Mg@mail.gmail.com> <3d313591-d770-75db-8ce1-973f724d067a@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 23:01:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mOTTXuoUuHGxwjiB3WRSacsVCbUuWaFXrfNx2mXqstgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f40304360182dab27a05549dd22c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8Xc_XFeGcw706NkhS4jkwBJmq04>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7934
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 18 Jul 2017 21:01:51 -0000
If a host gets a /64, it can allocate addresses out of it. If the prefix allows autoconfiguration, it can allocate its own addresses using SLAAC. On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Alexandre Petrescu < alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le 18/07/2017 à 21:28, Ted Lemon a écrit : > >> Alexandre, it's a really important recommendation of the document that >> the host be allowed to allocate /its own/ addresses, >> > > I dont understand how a host can allocate its own addresses. Or do you > mean IID? > > (we are very far from Host deciding an address, suggesting it to the > network, and the network update the routes - but I think you dont mean > that either.) > > Alex > > rather than having to rely on the correctness of the DHCP IA_NA >> implementation. So the language you are proposing would completely change >> that. >> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Alexandre Petrescu < >> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> I agree that in the past there may have existed a risk of cellular >> networks assigning a single IPv6 address (w/o even a plen) to one UE. >> So one wanted a recommendation against DHCPv6 single address per End >> node. >> >> However, I still think this RFC is a mis-written recommendation. >> >> It would have been much simpler to RECOMMEND to allocate multiple >> addresses per End node, as many as that End node requires, be them >> individual addresses, or addresses aggregated into prefixes, or multiple >> prefixes. >> >> But the current recommendation as it stands looks weird. >> >> Le 18/07/2017 à 17:23, Jen Linkova a écrit : >> >> I have read the draft and re-read rfc7934 and now I'm completely >> confused. First of all, I can not see where rfc7934 says that DHCPv6 is not >> recommended. >> >> >> RFC7934: >> >> In order to avoid the problems described above and preserve the >> Internet's ability to support new applications that use more than one >> IPv6 address, it is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 network deployments provide >> multiple IPv6 addresses from each prefix to general-purpose hosts. >> >> >> What makes one think that some network deployment might block the forming >> of multiple IPv6 addresses from each prefix? >> >> Or maybe the "from each prefix" is superfluous? >> >> Because I dont think there is any method that provides a prefix yet >> restricts the use to just one address in that prefix. >> >> If a Router sends an RA to many Hosts then each of these Hosts may >> configure many addresses within it. >> >> If a Router sends an RA unicast to a Host then that Host may configure >> many addresses within it. >> >> If an address is delivered by a DHCP Server, then that is an address >> without any prefix specified. >> >> If a prefix is delegated by a DHCP Server then a receiving Client may >> configure many addresses within that prefix. >> >> To support future use cases, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to impose a hard limit >> on the size of the address pool assigned to a host. >> >> >> What do you mean? Is that pool a DHCP pool? What is an example of >> someone imposing a hard limit on the size of that pool? >> >> Particularly, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to limit a host to only one IPv6 >> address per prefix. >> >> >> I did not see any place where there is such a restriction. I wonder >> what is an example where a Host was limited to only one IPv6 address >> formed out of a prefix. >> >> Due to the drawbacks imposed by requiring explicit requests for address >> space (see Section 4), it is RECOMMENDED that the network give the host the >> ability to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests. This can >> be achieved either by allowing the host >> to form new addresses autonomously (e.g., via SLAAC) or by providing >> the host with a dedicated /64 prefix. >> >> >> This "either or" sounds like exclusive or. But on cellular networks the >> Host is provided a dedicated prefix _and_ forms new addresses autonomously. >> >> This is confusing. >> >> Using stateful address assignment (DHCPv6 IA_NA or IA_TA) to provide >> multiple addresses when the host connects (e.g., the approximately 30 >> addresses that can fit into a single packet) >> >> >> ? is there such a restriction in the DHCP spec? Is it that DHCP >> Ack/Advertise could carry only 30 addresses? >> >> would accommodate current clients, but it sets a limit on the number of >> addresses available to hosts when they attach and therefore limits >> the development of future applications. >> >> >> Yes, it would set a limit _if_ DHCP had such a limit. Do you think DHCP >> has a limit in the number of addresses it could assign in an >> Ack or Advertise? >> >> The maximum number of IPv6 addresses that can be provided in a single >> DHCPv6 packet, given a typical MTU of 1500 bytes or smaller, is >> approximately 30. >> >> >> Do we have a packet dump showing this? I am asking because 30 addresses >> make for 480bytes... >> >> Jen said: >> >> I had to use all my imagination and still not sure how the phrase 'it >> is RECOMMENDED that the network give the host the ability to use new >> addresses without requiring explicit requests.' can be read as 'DHCPv6 is >> not recommended'. >> >> >> Because SLAAC does not obtain addresses by using Requests. That's DHCP >> who uses Requests to obtain addresses. >> >> That RECOMMENDation is clearly written by someone who has some deep >> disapproval of DHCP. >> >> Secondly, the statement 'a host which uses DHCPv6 IA_NA or IA_TA cannot >> use new addresses without requesting them from a DHCPv6 server >> on the network.' does not seem to be accurate. As this statement >> appears to be the key point of your document, I believe it needs to >> be fixed before we can proceed. >> >> >> On my side, I can agree. But that is your discussion. >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l >> istinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops> >> >> >>
- [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-h… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Job Snijders
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ross Chandler
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ross Chandler
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… joel jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Scott Morizot
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Scott Morizot
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Scott Morizot
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ross Chandler
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] RFC7934 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Tore Anderson
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-hi… Tim Chown
- Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for dra… Nick Hilliard