Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 05:14 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E811A8969 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 EAxkZBu9I45E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (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 F0F921A8963 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iggf3 with SMTP id f3so62354203igg.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=pj0+xqwpxGBkOykR4ZhMJufV36uY3AWjGj0DZIGpgYM=; b=rI873vB3gGl6u6OhoeW3AI/7M511fK5Poda62BuQYz0N5pNqd5CY2joNsoXU22BhEZ GolUHo5h0VEMBpjewd4cfkWSEKphnnP28ZqLrvM+YfxSnzNS5QFvjznf6EsKJjEcvpYC 79FLx7d29RBpgIgDtsXPLLwm+gIFgNUOnQwApodW8ZrqC26JXq5XCHU4RiL38TjNzZkr bSOkcfUsn90zMeV3cS+QTPRREqm+LkGQl9qn4z7CSk2oaD09U8PduS1UEDveVd2AYmhz u/LVfmyfsGwcQPdZ7FYdcOOSyIxaaeGJvf7dtx/1DEnZ9vLPTiLCQhicGOTqNE2gbjzX HrIQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.72.102 with SMTP id c6mr13723712igv.31.1437974045450; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.169.143 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 22:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55B115A6.5040607@acm.org>
References: <201507071147.t67Bl13m009348@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <EF21B630-5D0A-415A-A93F-9058900CC80C@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2zAqMXhBZ2wa=q0wtHGhMpMWU9TSjfFyd2quiki9w0oSw@mail.gmail.com> <85CADAA2-8DF2-4A6B-812B-7A77081936F5@cisco.com> <CAO42Z2w3fOxGJHasKqYZRfGZ2u=7FnZBm+jgLtgDvfZ7HYW=iw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z+DwOin23HQTysrZ9dNP924+LQ-vOExmJc_xZUEB4yCQ@mail.gmail.com> <228248C6-94FE-4C9C-A875-F732EFDC6601@cisco.com> <CAAedzxqapiWuy4Gk5t3zEe3XmaLyRc3nc5=aA1ED0tzfeXckbA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Hn9qJTaM0v3+hr7NfQbLc=mOWYGwrTK-XXxKp5v+dpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxpdFsCy2Y7U0gFmQeHEvJjNj-243g_ffoJsVUeRz5RpZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1uR+HyBTB=Yhy5hGs1Z6Wv=HT3wwFgLYDosDJ7a78-PA@mail.gmail.com> <D1D2A832.1B7D8F%sgundave@cisco.com> <CAAedzxoX1dD3MQO5YCS6+u1esThW0sVv=JMmivJXZ92FKZ0sZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2w8D+G7ONS5uXDP2kgf4da2JgiHHubEMt3TVumfFbkWOA@mail.gmail.com> <55B0177F.8050703@acm.org> <CAO42Z2yTrjLudtCnbR_ziTGAKYkwtCguF+yEB4e78jEVUUT-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <55B115A6.5040607@acm.org>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:13:35 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yp_gDqnX=CX=zbnBpqyYw7fYEja_zoySO7D7zHNu_TrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VGtkTeBWvdnmm7oIRuGL44aDACk>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast@tools.ietf.org" <draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-yc-v6ops-solicited-ra-unicast
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 05:14:09 -0000

Hi Erik,

On 24 July 2015 at 02:26, Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>; wrote:
> On 7/23/15 2:37 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>> If not, then the implementation needs to multicast the RA.
>>>
>> I was wondering if instead the implementation could trigger an ND/NS
>> transaction for the RS source address at that point, and then unicast
>> the RA when that completes.
>
> That would only address the lack of SLLAO case; not the unspecified source
> address case.

True. I think the only option to unicast responses for unspecified
source address cases would be link-layer unicast option.

> I don't know how common these cases are in existing implementations.
> The unspecified source would appear if the host is doing DAD in parallel
> with sending the RS.

I did some capturing/research related to this draft, Windows XP was
issuing unspecified source RSes at boot, then using link-local sourced
RSes, although the later versions of Windows I looked at didn't.

> I don't know when a host would omit the SLLAO in the RS.
>

I think it would be fairly common at the moment. The Linux user
interface oriented Network Manager utility
(https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/NetworkManager), used by at least
Fedora, is sending RSes without the SLLAO, as it uses the libndp.org
library, which only seems to currently support building a minimal
generic RS without the SLLAO option, and there doesn't seem to be an
obvious library call to add an SLLAO to the generic RS.

>>

<snip>

>
> I think there is text earlier to say to not create an NCE for 0::0 nor if
> there is no SLLAO (unless the link-layer has no addresses).
>

I've done some more searching of RFC4861, and haven't seemed to find
anything that specifically prohibits creating an NCE via a ND/NS
transaction for a RS without an SLLAO.

Thinking about it more, triggering an ND/NS to resolve the source
address of the RS if there is no SLLAO may not be all that beneficial,
as it effectively substitutes a multicast ND for a multicast RA. There
might be some other benefits from having router(s) having proactively
resolve a host's link-local RS source address that make trading a
multicast RA for a multicast ND worth while.

Regards,
Mark.

> Regards,
>    Erik
>
>>
>> Performing an NS/ND to resolve the source address of the RS without a
>> SLLO would seem consistent with the corresponding RS SLLO handling -
>> to load the Neighbor Cache with entries for nodes that have sent RSes.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mark.
>>
>>>     Erik
>>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22464.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22464.html
>>>>
>>>>> But I would not say it's sufficient, if only from an "explicit
>>>>> clarity" standpoint.  I think explicit mention of RAs and the other
>>>>> discussion is helpful for implementors not inclined to dig to great
>>>>> depths or just seeking explicit confirmation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>