IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-jaeggli-v6ops-indefensible-nd

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Tue, 11 September 2018 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 2DDB2130E39 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 wDNNbHq5bFzr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (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 BA7121277CC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 207-v6so101729wme.5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pzESZ93gHexuGe2AQ4f9Fs5ZLlFH4hbSs1uSlqsv230=; b=DWCgLax4uRWGa3YkJKNLAVpjCjxR9WMFwY7z5RXOiRWE5L7/B9KJoSIrz9dEUDFNDP PXKZr6+W552zZcA4K2MhNC7qlYQ+D3roeSG3foqHTQ5ZTYuFdqzYLSnYtN80ZouUo/KL CWDD0UKsCMdgPUhu61UJ6HJRJVOUKIhfViEi6UTG8qwBtAb63kIJKUIhj7tgfVWeYX0+ 35FBySX6mrMPwB+fsBCSLSO8I5SLKvxyUi9bJH/U8cpgQAqG/18yAk36gW/9QbLk1mQ2 /seOpsup/CE7TNA603SgRtALoWQ74PT2kK4/zv54Tmz3ypZgKE8euLN8DCstSocYYsLp ZxTA==
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=pzESZ93gHexuGe2AQ4f9Fs5ZLlFH4hbSs1uSlqsv230=; b=DffuDrJ6EQ3pOe5Zhz2eMCTwW7gQ9oFbOQ8HLY7sydRlQSHAxBxrQFBuD8dtDFaobO I7+zcPsSkdpPqTcajOqN8kony1ubdOUVZh+EtW2kkPpvgfUQirqmB0L4nkd7IjP5wAEl RBMM4m6+NMKTOuh0sfqoo/x7Nz1oxPnjUReR3ncDuMpUHGExGaOPOUGgpDDQhsoOcf0i aV91v8UXp5Y/GJBQa8YucneSyLLWvBuWodr7A4TIlubSDT4ZWTu0vX0xe6szVFTS5f0a iizJPqi+uAy8YBeScbj281QNF9E3+pmHarbPXkJIrcULF1jX4PZ9EWs2IZ0Kk61/PBbH D8ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51C0aysk4MtAlMY8UW+QyJhYZbMfjxJ/XXrHRjfv1oVWpef7f1Wg MkKorR/XnEz10YDUCgubGba967go6g+XYvOcMQFjIA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZAfYNg2Y40bxoTb/E3TCzDsvRfVw8GSpI9d2iYr0ZbOqtp4MFgvTSGI9yF+EPUiYLexgbt+v/kJ9O7x7lv1NU=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:1bca:: with SMTP id b193-v6mr324329wmb.6.1536648537812; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CO1PR05MB4439DAC0BE86DF0503CEB41AE050@CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <AA63368D-923E-4890-B518-CA8B119BCD7E@employees.org> <CAAedzxrtOrQrqZw-os45sRA2QT2gT7sE8CiuGxFFEssKx26iyw@mail.gmail.com> <FD8E7FA1-86F3-4193-ABBF-97AF25CEE565@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <FD8E7FA1-86F3-4193-ABBF-97AF25CEE565@employees.org>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:48:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxpdWEOn21ci0P5zuU8AgFe99kr_kYkAtFwNE90hREqL-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="00000000000047970a057592def8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/G4vIpopLaa49v4w7SNYTfYe8_sk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-jaeggli-v6ops-indefensible-nd
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: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 06:49:02 -0000

On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 15:34, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
> Erik,
>
> > On 11 Sep 2018, at 08:22, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 15:15, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> You might want to include that this problem has been solved with a stateful address assignment mechanism like DHCP, possibly combined with SAVI.
> >>
> >> The ND ARO option would also have solved this.
> >>
> >> Or you could deploy P2P Ethernet, where there is no address resolution.
> >>
> >> Depending on DAD for this lie Lorenzo proposed seems ill-advised. It’s even less robust in wired networks (blocked ports).
> >
> > But...in such a network NS/NA works?  (alternatively: what does
> > "blocked" mean here)
>
> NS/NA has retransmission.
> Blocked as in 802.1D. Default 30s from link-up until port will switch user traffic.

Do hosts receive RAs during this 30s window?  If not, then the
blocking affects DAD for link-local addresses, but not necessarily for
GUAs.

NOTE: I am most definitely /not/ attempting to argue that DAD is reliable.  ;-)

I had a notion about matching forwarding addresses not in cache
against the MLD info associated with the /104 for a given forwarding
destination address.  Seems like routers gathering MLD data might use
that list to prioritize forwarding for destinations not yet in the
neighbor cache.

> DAD is unreliable for lots of reasons . Didn’t we write a draft on that?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues ?

> Ole
>
>
> >>
> >>> On 10 Sep 2018, at 16:25, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> Each week between now and IETF 103, we will review and discuss one draft with an eye towards progressing it.
> >>>
> >>> This week, please review and comment on draft-jaeggli-v6ops-indefensible-nd.
> >>>
> >>>                                     Fred and Ron
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> v6ops mailing list
> >>> v6ops@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> v6ops mailing list
> >> v6ops@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email