Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt
David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 10 December 2019 17:24 UTC
Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 ADBA812080F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:24:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.055
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 tPUwsMljnbJ2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A24CC1208C7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47XRkr1TqFz9vcGZ for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:24:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dYGqUPR9Wo5a for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:24:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-qk1-f200.google.com (mail-qk1-f200.google.com [209.85.222.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47XRkq5jJ5z9vcGT for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:24:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-qk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id o184so12688921qkf.14 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:24:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/XPt9kP48SiwsVkRVSVCbuxrBc6W/JHc01ZYyor8Jng=; b=WKysI175VDEYp8HgKH6E3JpiiPR01RSD0gQeFSRylarBVIAfIlAhE071X8F3AtH6KW gTQiEYMFEVzRU9j14PmiMQzGYEh+h5jsKoSGIK+8CNMAYMP8D2JYjgL+Dh1/K1vaLC6N Cg981GDH5KNNmRe9cLOLFHoF4egv9zA06tYvKWQlHSTjHIVO4NXj0ECIdSGch/6I9Lz5 MrBdszGsIBen6GjHwBTfMZl50jhH3ZNeRqsqHy75Qdt3uINHuateEWGPQxnUq+odUXZE 9xvhxbY7jkUCLt2NxyrvgLG2B48RJHHwVIZ674FtDVt6pVeFNs56ic5g31oVICAtH2wH Fs+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/XPt9kP48SiwsVkRVSVCbuxrBc6W/JHc01ZYyor8Jng=; b=VKHWb95YLRVywwRrvjVGmk1C9YwFOfjiNcGUgGYEwWwjO6bNGCbG9yQ8z6bj1UPiAt VQi007dpT3MVl1Owjvb072FrObxsDsjQD9vCXXS2xNdeijRXBsf9tXX0HfMNrfywUZTt /b5QKzXup3CsxX5K9wUmb2WoqZUh4MoYKElEZezPOMUOYZJuaY/j/ZDJGQbC/p9hMYZC gdOrpBUnnD0Cv1yZ62YF7crxSQYD78eWLtl4nsw42vt6TMFYZX/w4YMRz9f8jjSMBDmW dgggRfZcySjt2SUI/iXLFnzFqe6N2r2p4m/3p4gtIrhfUUmF/PzSH9xgqqZ1mL69bxlV QN/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVxMtLMUIzK5FFAz7Xp8+rK7MN44qeIG8aoMcjUxfc6T14RxGw5 g3XF1l/m29tcLdFlT44gFVMUycm/qsLsZH1Rz9geXtcc76Zv1AvjmV7lxdYOaFtuSGMn/Exi8h4 X48gRvbgBYQLZIqthCzEVaVh4Fg==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b5cd:: with SMTP id o13mr2707222qvf.47.1575998674447; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwOMMZ4GMb7xALKl5ycT3m6/uhSUzYaF0XwlT9WA9l1dfzkNdHc/Jj5TTchdgMRq7Ddt/MBt+TR0UNCx0aGy7s=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b5cd:: with SMTP id o13mr2707178qvf.47.1575998673815; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:24:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157593507544.2098.9687007201578884820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABKWDgx5SSBP_K7BWxe4aPn9DKm-VPo62OXjsVZP8PRjfu0C2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQHkYh-EDLopUbWvw-gq8i5jttacVogKXUaJvJcBTdCOA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313E7F6E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DM6PR11MB41379502CE18C7AF513181F0CF5B0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <FB5B5DDE-9DB4-4E18-BF7E-7D9ECFCB016E@fugue.com> <DM6PR11MB4137651404FE6807DF29FC8DCF5B0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB4137651404FE6807DF29FC8DCF5B0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:24:17 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1F794J3GzDKNmSX+hGBauQbJ954-7ViOGZN9XHs1cRWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e9e4705995cc9dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Ts5e3bAms33wn4vFZXFpSCUybWs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:24:40 -0000
Bernie, Could you provide a couple of pointers to threads where the 0.0.0.0 address issue was discussed? I would like to better understand the issues around using 0.0.0.0 as the address returned, with making you re-debate the issue. Thanks On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:53 AM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote: > I've debated that issue on end and not going to do it any further. I > completely disagree - server should return whatever it would have returned > if the option is were not present. > > - Bernie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 11:39 AM > To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> > Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>; > dhcwg@ietf.org; V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt > > I really think you should have a clear justification for doing anything > other than returning 0.0.0.0. Anything else is going to be more > complicated in the long term. The justification “because 0.0.0.0 would be > filtered out by the server” seems like it’s very implementation-dependent > and not really that big a deal. Is that your only reason? > > > On Dec 10, 2019, at 8:11 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > Hi: > > > > Is (8): > > > > (8) Consider returning an address from the range defined in > RFC7335 for IPv6-only hosts. Such IPv4 addresses are required anyway for > some IPv6-only hosts (those with a CLAT for example). > > > > ==== > > The result is that 192.0.0.0/29 may be used in any system > > that requires IPv4 addresses for backward compatibility with > IPv4 > > communications in an IPv6-only network but does not emit IPv4 > packets > > "on the wire". > > ==== > > > > But RFC7335 says (in section 4): > > > > IANA has defined a well-known range, 192.0.0.0/29, in [RFC6333], > > which is dedicated for DS-Lite. As defined in [RFC6333], this subnet > > is only present between the B4 and the Address Family Transition > > Router (AFTR) and never emits packets from this prefix "on the wire". > <--- > > 464XLAT has the same need for a non-routed IPv4 prefix, and this same > > need may be common for other similar solutions. It is most prudent > > and effective to generalize 192.0.0.0/29 for the use of supporting > > IPv4 interfaces in IPv6 transition technologies rather than reserving > > a prefix for every possible solution. > > > > So, this address is only used "on the host" (not on the wire), so why > would there be any need for the DHCP server to assign this address? > > > > And as the IPv6-only option means that the host never completes the > DHCPDISCOVER/OFFER/REQUEST/ACK (stops at OFFER), this work could not be > used to assign any address. > > > > - Bernie > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of > > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 5:32 AM > > To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>; dhcwg@ietf.org > > Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for > > draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt > > > > Hi Jen, > > > > Thank you for sharing this updated version. Below some points that I do > think need more clarification in the I-D: > > > > (1) The document is too NAT64 centric. The proposal may apply as well > for other IPv6-only deployment scenarios (typically, unmanaged IPv6-only > CPEs with IPv4aaS). > > > > (2) A discussion on the benefit of this extra signal compared to relying > on existing signals (pref64, aftr_name, map_container...). For example, a > host that supports the option is ready to wait at minimum 300s and disable > its IPv4 configuration regardless of what is happening on the IPv6 leg. How > is that superior to a host delaying DHCP process by xxx ms should be > explained further. > > > > (3) How "IPv6-only preferred" mode is supposed to be set at the host > side: > > > > == > > A DHCP client SHOULD allow a device administrator to configure > > IPv6-only preferred mode either for a specific interface (to indicate > > that the device is IPv6-only capable if connected to a NAT64 network > > via that interface) or for all interfaces. > > == > > > > * I guess the default value when the option is supported by a host is to > disable including it in the request. The document should include a > discussion on the default behavior. > > * If an explicit action is needed from the user to enable including the > option, having a discussion to what extent the feature is likely to be > enabled would be needed. > > > > (4) The document is still mixing the DHCP client vs. host behaviors. > > For example, > > > > Clients not capable of operating in an IPv6-only NAT64 environment > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > MUST NOT include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the Parameter > > Request List of any DHCP packets and MUST ignore that option in > > packets received from DHCP servers. > > > > does not make sense for a DHCP client. > > > > Also, how the host is able to assess/determine that it is (not) capable > to behave in the IPv6 mode? > > > > (5) The definition of IPv4aaS is not aligned with other RFCs: e.g., > RFC8585 says the following: > > > > "IPv4aaS" stands for "IPv4-as-a-Service", meaning transition > > technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only connectivity. > > > > While yours is: > > > > IPv4-as-a-Service: a deployment scenario when end hosts are expected > > to operate in IPv6-only mode by default and IPv4 addresses can be > > assigned to some hosts if those hosts explicitly opt-in to receiving > > IPv4 addresses. > > > > (6) Do you consider a host with CLAT function as an IPv6-only host? > > > > If so, the following definition should be updated to refer to "IPv4 > connectivity" rather than "IPv4" in general. This is because an IPv4 > address is required for CLAT for example. > > > > == > > IPv6-only capable host: a host which does not require IPv4 and can > > operate on IPv6-only networks. > > == > > > > (7) Wouldn't the following add an extra delay for applications requiring > CLAT? > > > > == > > The host MAY disable IPv4 stack > > completely for V6ONLY_WAIT seconds or until the network disconnection > > event happens. > > == > > > > (8) Consider returning an address from the range defined in RFC7335 for > IPv6-only hosts. Such IPv4 addresses are required anyway for some IPv6-only > hosts (those with a CLAT for example). > > > > ==== > > The result is that 192.0.0.0/29 may be used in any system > > that requires IPv4 addresses for backward compatibility with IPv4 > > communications in an IPv6-only network but does not emit IPv4 packets > > "on the wire". > > ==== > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jen Linkova > >> Envoyé : mardi 10 décembre 2019 01:02 À : dhcwg@ietf.org Cc : V6 Ops > >> List Objet : [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for > >> draft-link-dhc-v6only- 01.txt > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> Thanks to everyone for very productive centi-thread on > >> draft-link-dhc-v6only-00 ;) > >> Here is the improved version, -01. > >> > >> The main changes: > >> > >> - The option is not zero length anymore. It has 4-bytes value which > >> might contain V6ONLY_WAIT timer. Benefits: > >> --- allows the network administrators to pilot the changes and > >> rollback quickly if needed; > >> --- addressed some concern about an option having zero length > >> (allegedly it might confuse some clients) > >> > >> - Using a dedicated address to return to clients is now an optional > >> optimisation. By default the server is expected just to return a > >> random address (as usual). > >> > >> - Typos fixed (probably some new typos added though). > >> > >> The authors would like the DHC WG to consider adopting this document. > >> > >> Thank you! > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > >> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:44 AM > >> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt > >> To: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, Lorenzo Colitti > >> <lorenzo@google.com>, Jen Linkova <furry@google.com>, Michael C. > >> Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> > >> > >> > >> > >> A new version of I-D, draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt has been > >> successfully submitted by Jen Linkova and posted to the IETF > >> repository. > >> > >> Name: draft-link-dhc-v6only > >> Revision: 01 > >> Title: IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP > >> Document date: 2019-12-09 > >> Group: Individual Submission > >> Pages: 10 > >> URL: > >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt > >> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-link-dhc-v6only/ > >> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-link-dhc-v6only-01 > >> Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-link-dhc-v6only > >> Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-link-dhc-v6only-01 > >> > >> Abstract: > >> This document specifies a DHCP option to indicate that a host > >> supports an IPv6-only mode and willing to forgo obtaining an IPv4 > >> address if the network provides IPv6 connectivity. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > >> tools.ietf.org. > >> > >> The IETF Secretariat > >> > >> > >> -- > >> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dhcwg mailing list > >> dhcwg@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dhcwg mailing list > > dhcwg@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6ops@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
- [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-l… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification… mohamed.boucadair