Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 28 January 2021 02:10 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 1BB663A1113; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 18:10:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 xDA-GRm7DR0N; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 18:10:32 -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 3F55F3A1106; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 18:10:27 -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 23236280407; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 02:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org>, "v6ops-chairs@ietf.org" <v6ops-chairs@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
References: <160325603610.17357.6914550111489766157@ietfa.amsl.com> <cf025acf-5192-d9a3-a727-8716d9d7b232@si6networks.com> <4fbc24c6-ef7b-5a99-3d04-69e6c9c3c90a@si6networks.com> <011245F3-558B-4F9D-97E5-56BBEE0419D2@cisco.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <b9c1e036-399c-e7d4-d46d-ef2f29530e00@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:32:54 -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: <011245F3-558B-4F9D-97E5-56BBEE0419D2@cisco.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/EP6gWWPm6iniDjIO0GmxJWmNZPY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with 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 02:10:37 -0000

On 27/1/21 22:15, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> See comments below (BV>).
> 
> - Bernie (from iPad)
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2021, at 5:53 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Ben,
>>
>> On 27/1/21 18:21, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> [....]
>>>>         *  In Replies to DHCPv6 Request, Renew, Rebind messages, send 0
>>>>            lifetimes for any address assignments or prefix delegations for
>>>>            the deprecated prefixes for at least the valid-lifetime
>>>>            previously employed for them, or for a period of ND_VALID_LIMIT
>>>>            if the recommended lifetimes from Section 3.2 are employed.
>>>>
>>>> Is it deliberate to say nothing at all about Advertise messages (which
>>>> are sent in response to Solicit messages, not any of the listed ones)?
>>> I will double-check this one with my co-authors.
>>
>> Our plan is to add this note to the RATIONALE of Section 3.3:
>>
>>    The above text does not include responses to DHCPv6 Solicit messages,
> BV> A Solicit with Rapid Commit may return a Reply. So this only applies to Advertise responses.

Will fix this. Thanks!


>>    since Section 18.3.9 of RFC8415 requires that a DHCPv6 server
>>    that is not going to assign an address or delegated prefix received
>>    as a hint in the Solicit message MUST NOT include that address or
>>    delegated prefix in the Advertise message. Additionally, any
>>    subsequent Solicit messages will trigger the response specified in
> BV> There are usually no “subsequent” Solicits. There is a subsequent Request.

Oops. That was just me both sloppy and sleepy..

The resulting text is:
    The above text does not include DHCPv6 Advertise messages sent in
    response to DHCPv6 Solicit messages, since Section 18.3.9 of
    [RFC8415] requires that a DHCPv6 server
    that is not going to assign an address or delegated prefix received
    as a hint in the Solicit message MUST NOT include that address or
    delegated prefix in the Advertise message. Additionally, any
    subsequent Request messages will trigger the response specified in
    this section, and therefore cause the address or prefix to be
    deprecated.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492