Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion - address out of the delegated prefix, on the egress - no DAD

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred,

Le 03/11/2015 19:05, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, November 03,
>> 2015 1:25 AM To: Templin, Fred L; [e-mail] Subject: Re:
>> [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion -
>> address out of the delegated prefix, on the egress - no DAD
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 03/11/2015 16:13, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre
>>>> Petrescu Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 6:56 PM To:
>>>> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [v6ops]
>>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion - address
>>>> out of the delegated prefix, on the egress - no DAD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 03/11/2015 10:31, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
>>>>> Bumping up one level - is it clear to everyone that it is OK
>>>>> to assign addresses taken from a DHCPv6 delegated prefix to
>>>>> the interface over which the prefix was received? And, that
>>>>> DAD is not required for those addresses?
>>>>
>>>> This indeed new enough at least to me.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that if the prefix is delegated for Host with DHCP-PD
>>>> then it has a tighter bind to that Host, tighter than a prefix
>>>> _advertised_ to it with an RA.
>>>>
>>>> In that sense, certainly yes the Host may self-form and assign
>>>> an address on its interface over which the application DHCP-PD
>>>> received it earlier.
>>>>
>>>> And, since the prefix is administratively unique, it would
>>>> make little sense for the Host to DAD that address on that
>>>> interface.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, it would bring some advantages for privacy.  Privacy
>>>> addresses as we know them make only the IID variable, while
>>>> still keeping a trackable prefix (the advertised prefix).  With
>>>> this way of prefix delegation, the Host may decide more ways to
>>>> obfuscate its identity: use sometimes the allocated prefix,
>>>> other times the advertised prefix, in some hard-to-detect
>>>> sequence.
>>>>
>>>> But, if a Host forms an address out of the delegated prefix
>>>> and wants to talk to its Gateway on that interface, maybe it
>>>> wants to send an RA to that Gateway so the Gateway forms an
>>>> address out of the delegated prefix too.  At that point DAD
>>>> would be needed.
>>>
>>> "Host sends an RA to the Gateway" doesn't make any sense that I
>>> am aware of.
>>
>> I should have said "to the link on which the Gateway is present".
>>
>> On a shared link, where each such Host is delegated a prefix (no
>> prefix advertised by the RA from the gateway), these Hosts will
>> want to reach each other directly w/o being ICMP Redirected by the
>> Gateway.  Which address should such a Host use to reach its
>> neighbor.
>
> Each host will initially have only a default route pointing to a
> router on the shared link and no on-link prefix. For host-to-host
> communications on the link, there would need to be a redirect. Is
> that bad?

I think it can work with defroute and no onlink prefix.

Whether or not is bad can be a matter of number of such redirects.
Intuitively, it can be very few Redirects if a few Hosts, and it can be
many Redirects if the Hosts are tethering devices; because each active
address behind device would need to be be re-directed.

But yes the DAD-less aspect of addresses self-formed out of DHCP-PD'ed
prefixes looks good.

Alex

>
> Thanks - Fred
>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks - Fred
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks - Fred
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:*v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>>>>> *Templin, Fred L *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 5:24 PM
>>>>> *To:* Lorenzo Colitti *Cc:* [e-mail] *Subject:* Re:
>>>>> [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>>>>
>>>>> Responses below in "green":
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:*Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]] *Sent:*
>>>>> Monday, November 02, 2015 5:04 PM *To:* Templin, Fred L
>>>>> *Cc:* Fred Baker (fred); [e-mail]
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops]
>>>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Templin, Fred L
>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one text addition suggestion and one question. On P.
>>>>> 7, in Table 1, suggest adding a new final row as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> requires DAD               Yes                  Yes No N/A
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning that multi-addresses configured by SLAAC or DHCPv6
>>>>> IA_NA/IA_TA must use DAD to check for duplicates on the link
>>>>> they were obtained. In a multi-addressing environment where
>>>>> millions of addresses are required, this could amount to a
>>>>> substantial amount of DAD multicast traffic. On the other
>>>>> hand, DAD is not needed for DHCPv6 PD because the network
>>>>> has unambiguously delegated the prefix for the node's
>>>>> exclusive use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think "Requires DAD: No" is correct. Even if the
>>>>> device gets a /64 prefix entirely for its own use, it still
>>>>> needs to do DAD with any other devices on that /64 (e.g.,
>>>>> tethered devices, VMs, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not opposed to adding a line to the table, though I
>>>>> don't think it provides much value - if we put our mind to
>>>>> it, I'm sure we could come up with lots of things we could
>>>>> add to the table that aren't there at the moment. My main
>>>>> concern is that if we add something to the table it needs to
>>>>> be correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I mean is "Requires DAD on the interface over which the
>>>>> prefix was received",
>>>>>
>>>>> but that was too long to fit in the table. Let's call the
>>>>> interface "A". If the node gets
>>>>>
>>>>> SLAAC addresses or DHCP IA_NA/IA_TA addresses over interface
>>>>> "A", then it needs
>>>>>
>>>>> to do DAD on interface "A" for each such address. If the
>>>>> node gets a DHCPv6 PD
>>>>>
>>>>> over interface "A", however, it does not need to do DAD over
>>>>> interface "A" at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the node assigns the delegated prefix to interface "B",
>>>>> then you are right that
>>>>>
>>>>> that DAD will be required among all tethered devices, VMs,
>>>>> etc. on interface "B".
>>>>>
>>>>> But, there will still be no need for DAD on interface "A".
>>>>> Does that clarify?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a question also on table 1. Under ""Unlimited"
>>>>> endpoints", why does it say "no" for DHCPv6 PD? I think it
>>>>> should say "yes" instead, since a prefix obtained by DHCPv6
>>>>> PD can be used to configure an unlimited number of addresses
>>>>> on the link over which the prefix was received.
>>>>>
>>>>> The table is written from the perspective of the network
>>>>> assigning addresses to devices that connect to it. Therefore,
>>>>> it says "no" because if you use DHCPv6 PD you can't assign
>>>>> address space to an unlimited number of endpoints - you are
>>>>> limited to however many /64s you have available.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you use IA_NA or SLAAC, any network with a /64 subnet has,
>>>>> at least in theory, an "unlimited" number of addresses to
>>>>> assign to clients. Of course, that's only true in theory. In
>>>>> practice, there's going to be a limit due to scaling
>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand this. True that SLAAC and DHCPv6
>>>>> IA_NA/IA_TA can be used
>>>>>
>>>>> to assign an unlimited number of addresses to interface "A".
>>>>> But, so can DHCPv6
>>>>>
>>>>> PD. When the node receives the delegated prefix (e.g., a
>>>>> /64), it can assign as
>>>>>
>>>>> many unique IPv6 addresses as it likes to interface "A". And
>>>>> again, it need not
>>>>>
>>>>> do DAD for any of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops
>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing
>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>
>