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

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.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 9ACB221F8C65 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:26:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, 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 KTEh3UZ0LSs0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF4621E809E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:26:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AXO61449; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:26:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:26:10 +0000
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:26:47 +0000
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.252]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:26:41 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
Thread-Index: AQHOzltsXXG/hvZHw0OAdgyFq+29zZoVi9gAgABL/ACAAECpgIAAB7OAgAAhtgCAABR1gIAAqRLL
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:26:40 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D7F083A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <201310211245.r9LCj0B29668@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050427070.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAJE_bqcsqpeERWmgaC5xW9J_zpBJYCGeVzQmF7y2Ki3jG+AVag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311051251410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <15A60E31-DAD1-4E72-8E27-52868FAF9203@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311051519120.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>, <52791025.6070601@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52791025.6070601@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.132.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, =?gb2312?B?yfHD999f1NU=?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
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 18:26:54 -0000

> From: Brian E Carpenter [brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]

> From yesterday's discussion, the outcomes seem a little more complicated
> than that.
[Bing] I have the same feeling, especially after off-line talking with Eric, I began to notice that it might involve some network-management-philosophy difference. That might be one of the resons why the specification has ambiguity. It was and will be difficult to get consensus on what is exactly the "right" behavior.

> 1. I think the problem statement as it stands (with the English cleaned
> up) is a very useful document with two audiences:

 > a) the IETF, including 6man, because it points to ambiguity in our specs;
 > b) the operator community, because it warns of some very specific
 > operational (mis)behaviours with currently deployed code.
[Bing] Yes, that is why we put the document in v6ops. Regardless of whether 6man would clear the ambiguity or not, the operational problems need to be documented, that is the basic goal of this draft.

> Because of b) I think it needs to become an RFC quite soon.
[Bing] I hope so.

> 2. Then (probably as a separate document) we need an analysis of
> which problems are a result of

>   a) implementation errors, which the IETF can document but not fix;
>   b) differing interpretations of MAYs and SHOULDs (Fred's point),
>      where the IETF could consider BCP guidance to implementors;
>   c) errors or ambiguities in the standards, which 6man should fix.
[Bing] A separated document would make sense. And it might involve much more discussion/arguments than the problem statement.

Regards,
Bing