Re: [v6ops] PD to hosts [was: DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion] ]

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 16 November 2015 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 2E4BF1A8A3C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:09:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9Ajaupc6b14I for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B667A1A89EB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id tAGN9Krq038149; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:09:20 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-blv-105.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.121]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id tAGN9A9u037737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:09:11 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.189]) by XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.5.18]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:09:09 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PD to hosts [was: DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion] ]
Thread-Index: AQHRIJpUsgni8VUg+0O8njNAhlteCp6fN14+gAANn9A=
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:09:09 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4D4C5@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <m1ZyNBq-0000HnC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4CF07@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1ZyNyc-0000EoC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F4CFA6@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1ZyS3J-0000CGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
In-Reply-To: <m1ZyS3J-0000CGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bV2newCrsDB5v2IzWFp0msr-7_0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PD to hosts [was: DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion] ]
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, 16 Nov 2015 23:09:23 -0000

Hi Philip,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com [mailto:pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:15 PM
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Cc: Templin, Fred L
> Subject: Re: PD to hosts [was: DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion] ]
> 
> >> I wonder if A should then always set the Router flag in neighbor advertis=
> >ements
> >> as well. It looks like it has to, otherwise the neighbor cache will be
> >> flushed.
> >
> >Section 8.3 of RFC4861 says:
> >
> >   "If the Target and Destination Addresses are the same, the host MUST
> >   treat the Target as on-link.  If the Target Address is not the same
> >   as the Destination Address, the host MUST set IsRouter to TRUE for
> >   the target.  If the Target and Destination Addresses are the same,
> >   however, one cannot reliably determine whether the Target Address is
> >   a router.  Consequently, newly created Neighbor Cache entries should
> >   set the IsRouter flag to FALSE, while existing cache entries should
> >   leave the flag unchanged.  If the Target is a router, subsequent
> >   Neighbor Advertisement or Router Advertisement messages will update
> >   IsRouter accordingly."
> >
> >and Appendix D. of RFC4861 says:
> >
> >   " - The target of the redirect, when the target is the same as the
> >      destination, does not carry any host vs. router information.  All
> >      that is known is that the destination (i.e., target) is on-link
> >      but it could be either a host or a router."
> >
> >In this case, the Target and Destination Address are the same. So, there is
> >no host vs. router information, and the default value for isRouter is FALSE=
> 
> Target and Destination are the same if the router sending the redirect
> considers the Destination to be on-link.
> 
> Given that the router has a link local next hop, I wonder if that's the
> case.
>
> In general after prefix delegation, the delegating router is supposed to
> assume that the prefix is not on-link but used on other links.

Yes, you are right; the target address will be the link-local address of
N on the eth0 link, and the destination address will be A. So, to the
outside world, N would look like a router. Do you see a problem
with that?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com