IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

otroan@employees.org Thu, 12 January 2017 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 39C831293E1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:45:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.264
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.264 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_SORBS_WEB=3.599, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 LVbAPjnROgDp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:45:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [198.137.202.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D6B12896F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:45:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([65.50.211.142]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2017 08:45:12 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C519CC81; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:45:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= selector1; bh=KdXE48FS0fLkms08R+d9N98yoFk=; b=W8bR1CaIlq+FVXpgBg IyBXeHf6SA+d23AKm1rhCFDrITy01FPo5o2dTiaDCTXw21F8gGlVhNsJiV+i+oyM AiHMSCg1BwC/u018MNJKNj51eU/egy9N5bFWojady/gvsisQNgJ+1d9o6ccf5Ra/ m0syKoMj7je/ugA5XEbIDod3I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; q=dns; s= selector1; b=j2++zvFoRxFvdcRdHSvwwF4xtGkZV5t5/sKoZWl/JwlYjseRAMh 1flE+dDlDQxkFvovvAam5tTtvMlUrm1GssAxzOD44QlpfRnwhwmXJDIOZ0tmK5/5 eECGHOaDkM5CAfoBammJceFzj/HW69GNnLCyjLX1y7/f1F3h4ci3m+PI=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (219.103.92.62.static.cust.telenor.com [62.92.103.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61F1B9CC84; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:45:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8D174632F5; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:45:08 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <89c6a9a4-e561-dee3-8899-17ae50ae4c2a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:45:08 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <44FCCC34-7995-4E10-85E9-58C08C371416@employees.org>
References: <SN1PR0501MB20626C57C61FA1E9EB9DFA92AE660@SN1PR0501MB2062.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <89c6a9a4-e561-dee3-8899-17ae50ae4c2a@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fWeyVweYw6qGDOj5rxphWJli85U>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 12 Jan 2017 08:45:14 -0000

> This draft describes real issues but the information is a bit out of date.
> Can we ask the authors to confirm that things are still the same for current
> o/s releases? Then publish quickly so that we can start the *real* discussion:
> how to fix?

This draft shouldn't be gating any real discussion. If there are solutions please offer them now.

I have read through the draft again. While the draft has some points, these are issues that has been discussed extensively. I struggle to see how this will lead to and "fixes".

I have a suggestion. Given that we have beaten on this particular horse a lot over the last 15 years.
Could we redo this draft into a "Why?" draft in the style of RFC7421?
Explain the issues, explain the design choices and why the mechanisms function as they do, but don't phrase it as a problem that needs to be fixed.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email