IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Thu, 09 November 2017 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 68CF4120713 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 19:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 WSCHSg50yVnO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 19:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22e.google.com (mail-yw0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB4F129467 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 19:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t11so4123304ywg.12 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 19:03:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j//aY5/Er09DGSMKp66CHnK18tSRxpJCZh0z1sR/8+A=; b=gunb3gmREMuHQW/9WPS/8M3bWfFc4Wtym+iVVfI2EZFh7vFk4y9jVGwfhx7PCtrriB 2uheCoWLu+jnBZl/zTU1ul6MDj+UqK8vbs699xl8QLin3Ce0pj446MQutj7TaoD4lLFC TxQYDXtsdNMI4YvMJTDOP91sw7oRWMCiZYc1qKoKTjr1FihUiD9cQEf/dMfVlNvXF10P QNKyu7yf72Kt3MB1sYZ3FK7+HMNAJMo499P3XeSY8oWdEjNPe5OB8Nim1R+K48XhP5ne goaXJPGmnMS0ehSOIDLijGByRS0NgYzQeSl6P+wABUeYlsBIE77D04M+umYQ0Yo2dBQW ypxw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j//aY5/Er09DGSMKp66CHnK18tSRxpJCZh0z1sR/8+A=; b=Vbld+IxcOjNZm7OT/7m1wNJl3ZLpbWtA92Naqt1HQCrVncSi4Je8HEW8C0NZmEvl1p 84nUmWKUhj+oFsuU1DxmNWZsxmO8NI4Dgps7iPF2VRTdIJp+enm5bixVVvRSn11yWN2g 2QXjrEzJJv7qEH/J0k5Xur+ZVnBwbXIeY9PdsrBtlInQ/umCD43PKlrViI9ubgQMRbx5 Gwhv13feZKa3W93HHJm72fC4uXMNl+i0cUPwlrMXSKkqafy2dgPB9cZLW/7SmXNHmS++ qjSYhkzWuhaplepKzC4QCzKhaNsK270SKzfizNTZHjUCbpk/XMtEdYlJ/uoFRUVTEWdo DmMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4fZrCItKWJkPaG/o3+94Vj6cbQB8XuGgaSVaPDw7K5MseH/WVU H63qrLv0HdjTuu5k1fmIomE9OBJUScBTERxdBgeWdg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RoWRRchLZY7WtN+hnjynx2Q0EtrSkXUp08zdCyu2HosNasrdSGEgzynq0YExnCJmKtJF7AIZMMM0oJU/jb+qg=
X-Received: by 10.129.89.133 with SMTP id n127mr1824307ywb.68.1510196587031; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 19:03:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.130.80 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 19:02:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com>
References: <be9724f5-2ff5-d90c-2749-ecae2c628b78@si6networks.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:02:46 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxpLL26kDi1yzB=rDQjuNOpb64wtCBMcP+VYf=dc54rF7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man-ads@tools.ietf.org" <6man-ads@ietf.org>, "v6ops-ads@ietf.org" <v6ops-ads@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="001a1149152c24efee055d840b3a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/TGuTNVsVfVibNtrQbIGQjdu9ZVc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 03:03:12 -0000

I don't think we should be recommending unique RAs per device where
the devices are all on a shared link.

My understanding was that in the original motivating wifi deployment
every node is effectively isolated in its own (pseudo)VLAN, and
node-to-node traffic must be routed through the infrastructure (to the
extent such a thing can actually be enforced in a medium like wifi).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email