Re: [v6ops] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 23 October 2013 03:40 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 9F8B511E80F5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 xLcfNbROxc+P for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F0611E8118 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 332599C; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:40:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272739A; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:40:14 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:40:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <1382469405.56346.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1310230533340.1838@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <201310211245.r9LCj0B29668@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1310211454090.26825@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D7CC14B@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1310221511520.8663@uplift.swm.pp.se> <1382469405.56346.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.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="-137064504-61013402-1382499614=:1838"
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] DHCPv6/SLAAC Make Hosts Confusing-//RE: 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: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:40:20 -0000

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:

> Is this saying that the prefix length of the address on host is /128?

A single address is always a /128. This /128 can be part of an on-link 
other network, or it isn't.

> If that is the case, as the prefix length in doesn't indicate on-link or 
> off-link status (as RA PIOs do), is there any specific reason for the 
> prefix length the DHCPv6 server hands out to be /128 instead of the 
> subnet's prefix length of /64? 

The DHCPv6 server always hands out /128. This /128 can be within a subnet 
advertised in RA, or it can be outside of it. The host doesn't care. When 
a subnet is being advertised in RA you get a network route pointing to the 
interface without an IPv6 address as next-hop.

So it's perfectly achievable today (and it works) to have the following:

Host gets 2001:db8:fff::1/128 from dhcp
host gets on-link 2001:db8:1::/64 from RA and creates a route towards the 
interface for this, but doesn't do SLAAC because A=0.
Host gets default route from router and installs it.

Now, the *router* needs to understand that 2001:db8:fff::1/128 is on-link, 
but no other hosts on the network does not.

So what networks are being announced in RA is completely decoupled from 
addresses handed out by DHCPv6 IA_NA. It's perfectly valid to hand out a 
/128 and then have no on-link prefixes at all, or have some with A=0.

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