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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 03-Nov-20 06:13, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:25 AM Fred Baker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Let me ask a question of the operators. This draft, as of today, is in discussion in 6man and will probably be discussed in the 6man meeting. I have not offered the authors a slot in v6ops, as it is not being discussed here. That said, it is presumably a solution to an operational problem, in that the prefix that SLAAC is being used to generate an address in is not exactly 64 bits.
> 
>    
>     Gyan> Agreed on 6MAN slot.  Yes, solution to operational problem.  We would discuss both problem and solution during the time slot so I think 6MAN would be the right spot.  Correct.

Why would 6man spend time on solving a problem before the operational community agreees that there is a problem?

My understanding is that the principal operational requirement is already stated in BCP198 (RFC7608). There was a previous attempt to change the status quo in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6 but that didn't advance.

So let's have a discussion whether there is a new operational problem here first:

  "The main problem is that SLAAC RA or PD allocates a /64 by the
   wireless carrier 4G, 5G, 3GPP to mobile handset or hotspot, however
   segmentation of the /64 via SLAAC is required so that downstream
   interfaces can be further sub-netted."

Why isn't that in v6ops scope?

>     Soliciting opinions on the problem: is this something that needs a solution?

Is there any reason why the mobile devices can't be given a /56 or /48, which solves the problem immediately?

    Brian

On the solution: what do you think of it? Does it have holes?
> 
>     
>     Gyan> Yes soliciting opinions on the problem is the first step and poking holes on v6ops before we get to solution - so v6ops ML is perfect spot for that.
> 
> 
> 
>     > On Nov 2, 2020, at 12:14 AM, Gyan Mishra <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >
>     >   Dear v6OPS,
>     >
>     > This draft addresses the problem statement to change SLAAC's historical fixed 64 bit boundary to variable PIO so that VLSM masking is supported just as it is today with static & DHCPv6 & DHCPv6 PD. 
>     >
>     > This change to SLAAC to variable, ensures that parity is maintained between the three address deployment mechanisms that exist today with IPv6.  This draft as well addresses the MAJOR gap that exists today with lack of parity and the historical framework of the impact of this lack of partify that has existed since the IPv6 specification was published 20+ years ago.
>     >
>     > We have a solutions draft below that is referenced in this draft that goes over in detail the solution on 6MAN.
>     >
>     > ! Variable SLAAC
>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac/
>     >
>     > Bob & Ole,
>     >
>     > Please review.  Based on the feedback received from 6MAN, I would like to request a time slot on IETF 109.
>     >
>     > Kind Regards
>     >
>     > Gyan
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>     > From: Mishra, Gyan S <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:50 PM
>     > Subject: Fwd: [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt
>     > To: Hayabusanew <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>     > From: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 6:46 PM
>     > Subject: [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt
>     > To: Naveen Kottapalli <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Gyan Mishra <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Dusan Mudric <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Dmytro Shytyi <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > A new version of I-D, draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt
>     > has been successfully submitted by Gyan Mishra and posted to the
>     > IETF repository.
>     >
>     > Name:           draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt
>     > Revision:       01
>     > Title:          SLAAC with prefixes of arbitrary length in PIO (Variable SLAAC) - A Problem Statement
>     > Document date:  2020-10-30
>     > Group:          Individual Submission
>     > Pages:          12
>     > URL:            https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_archive_id_draft-2Dmishra-2Dv6ops-2Dvariable-2Dslaac-2Dproblem-2Dstmt-2D01.txt&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=ZpKJS8hFoz8oYRnxB625Sh8r1NsuITN0k-oDx27MAoo&s=dtYY-cXn0FCho9ZftXjO-TuTH19Nr6MO5spHMPP0xR4&e=
>     > Status:         https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dmishra-2Dv6ops-2Dvariable-2Dslaac-2Dproblem-2Dstmt_&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=ZpKJS8hFoz8oYRnxB625Sh8r1NsuITN0k-oDx27MAoo&s=r_lKH89Jv_SyFjyIiw5PnM-0tsi2rCVZBfiR8Q9kHxc&e=
>     > Htmlized:       https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_html_draft-2Dmishra-2Dv6ops-2Dvariable-2Dslaac-2Dproblem-2Dstmt&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=ZpKJS8hFoz8oYRnxB625Sh8r1NsuITN0k-oDx27MAoo&s=eKzBB98mFai1psOcqSKEFKAB4ex0TTkH1qE3KwlktF8&e=
>     > Htmlized:       https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dmishra-2Dv6ops-2Dvariable-2Dslaac-2Dproblem-2Dstmt-2D01&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=ZpKJS8hFoz8oYRnxB625Sh8r1NsuITN0k-oDx27MAoo&s=BWr8XoPyMxt4e9KnLojwGX54ODGu0gmDToc_EweEdtI&e=
>     > Diff:           https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dmishra-2Dv6ops-2Dvariable-2Dslaac-2Dproblem-2Dstmt-2D01&d=DwICaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-RfNVLML28ZU&m=ZpKJS8hFoz8oYRnxB625Sh8r1NsuITN0k-oDx27MAoo&s=ZnQw7BqnqoVfmkBjFXkEWMDk_QEIRHI-11QPkt3b1bU&e=
>     >
>     > Abstract:
>     >    In the past, various IPv6 addressing models have been proposed based
>     >    on a subnet hierarchy embedding a 64-bit prefix.  The last remnant of
>     >    IPv6 classful addressing is a inflexible interface identifier
>     >    boundary at /64.  This document details the 64-bit boundary problem
>     >    statement.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>     > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>     >
>     > The IETF Secretariat
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     >
>     > Gyan Mishra
>     > Network Solutions Architect & SME
>     > Data Center Planning | Common Core | Development & Engineering Lab Services
>     > Global Technology Services | ITNUC
>     > O 240 970-6287
>     > M 301 502-1347
>     > 13101 Columbia Pike Rm 304-D
>     > Silver Spring, MD 20904
>     >
>     > IETF  & ISOC Member since 2015
>     > https://www.ietf.org/
>     > https://www.internetsociety.org/
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     >
>     > Gyan Mishra
>     > Network Solutions Architect
>     > M 301 502-1347
>     > 13101 Columbia Pike
>     > Silver Spring, MD
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > v6ops mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> -- 
> 
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
> 
> *Gyan Mishra*
> 
> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
> 
> /M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike 
> /Silver Spring, MD
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>