Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Mon, 16 November 2015 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CA61B3168 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:55:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.685
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 VqAnQ5ALmiq0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529C41B3169 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delong-dhcp229.delong.com (delong-dhcp29 [192.159.10.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAGKpvE6027030 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:51:57 -0800
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_876C6E88-3536-45D3-82AD-E6174CD2A471"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4D137@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:51:56 -0800
Message-Id: <A076CD66-09B5-499B-B27A-0A00BAE73112@delong.com>
References: <8D175A1F-B1AE-44B4-838E-1C853B6C937D@cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F391A7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr15C-uoxUw0kgWO-d=LmUK8qWGLS7vt+22W+k8xXtDY+g@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F393F1@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3941D@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <563811DF.9020603@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F394F7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <563821EB.3040508@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F39A09@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <56392B6D.8030703@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3A88F@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3A97F@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAHDzDLBG8xZxUFsAuN-7WuruZcULF1QAS_ch=gD5rGQMZfskow@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3E8B0@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <831e60e2122547bc8bdf167e76f664c9@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4CE72@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.b! oeing.com> <e7bcbba7047f44aba6a355da51f3265b@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4D137@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/MPISgGu7Tru3e1NdnBMsstbqtp0>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:55:04 -0000

> On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:04 , Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Hemant,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:52 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; Mukom Akong T.
>> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
>> 
>> Fred,
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:42 AM
>> To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Mukom Akong T.
>> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
>> 
>>> - Node N receives a /64 prefix delegation for prefix P over interface eth0.
>>> - N assigns P to the lo interface as a /64 route. This is done to black-hole
>>>  unused portions of P.
>>> - N configures address A from prefix P, and assigns it to eth0.
>> 
>> If A from prefix P is assigned to eth0, we have violated rfc3633 which says to not assign any IPv6 address on the port on which the
>> node received the PD from.  Did I miss anything?
> 
> Section 12.1 of RFC3633 says:
> 
>   "the requesting router MUST
>   NOT assign any delegated prefixes or subnets from the delegated
>   prefix(es) to the link through which it received the DHCP message
>   from the delegating router.”

I would argue that an address from within the prefix constitutes the same thing as a prefix in this context.

Even if it is a /128 prefix.

Owen