Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 05 November 2013 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 EAFDD11E8272 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 03:53:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pMR3YmONhHmZ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 03:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2C211E80DE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 03:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id E66949C; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:53:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D189A; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:53:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:53:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: =?ISO-2022-JP?Q?=1B$B=3F=40L=40C#=3AH=1B=28J?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqcsqpeERWmgaC5xW9J_zpBJYCGeVzQmF7y2Ki3jG+AVag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311051251410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <201310211245.r9LCj0B29668@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050427070.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAJE_bqcsqpeERWmgaC5xW9J_zpBJYCGeVzQmF7y2Ki3jG+AVag@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-137064504-1230133297-1383652415=:26054"
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org" <draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Nov 2013 11:53:42 -0000

On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, 神明達哉 wrote:

> At Tue, 5 Nov 2013 04:30:12 +0100 (CET),
> Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
>
>>> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem. Please take a look at it and comment.
>>
>> My comment just now at the mic:
>>
>> I would like to see if any implementation actually deprecates the /64
>> onlink prefix when A goes from 1 to 0, or ignores the on-link prefix when
>> A=0.
>
> What do you mean by "deprecate the /64 onlink prefix"?
>
> Are you referring to this part of
> draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem?
>
>   [...] But when
>   SLAAC-configured, and A changed from 1 to 0, the behaviors varied,
>   some deprecated SLAAC while some ignored the RA messages.
>
> On re-reading it now, the draft text (specifically "deprecated SLAAC")
> is not very clear either, but at least it's clear to me that this is
> about address configuration, not about on/off link.

Yes, I know this is about address configuration. I am still curious if all 
OSes keep the /64 interface route when A changes to 0 (or is 0 to begin 
with). If you feel this is out of scope that's fine, then my curiosity 
will stay unanswered.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se