Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 05 November 2013 12:22 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 3348B11E8277 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 04:22:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hOGBwriQjW-W for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 04:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F342811E828D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 04:22:10 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUFAMnieFKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABagwc4wA2BKRZ0giYBBTo/EAsOOFcGiBQNviaPJjMHgyCBDwOZOZBagyc7
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,639,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="18796803"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 12:22:09 +0000
Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-88.cisco.com (dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-88.cisco.com [10.147.116.88]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA5CL9s3001427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:22:06 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311051251410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:22:05 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <57C59B32-C65F-4B52-AC7E-AFD33194D486@employees.org>
References: <201310211245.r9LCj0B29668@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050427070.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAJE_bqcsqpeERWmgaC5xW9J_zpBJYCGeVzQmF7y2Ki3jG+AVag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311051251410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, "draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org" <draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Nov 2013 12:22:17 -0000

Mikael,

>>>> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem. Please take a look at it and comment.
>>> 
>>> My comment just now at the mic:
>>> 
>>> I would like to see if any implementation actually deprecates the /64
>>> onlink prefix when A goes from 1 to 0, or ignores the on-link prefix when
>>> A=0.
>> 
>> What do you mean by "deprecate the /64 onlink prefix"?
>> 
>> Are you referring to this part of
>> draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem?
>> 
>> [...] But when
>> SLAAC-configured, and A changed from 1 to 0, the behaviors varied,
>> some deprecated SLAAC while some ignored the RA messages.
>> 
>> On re-reading it now, the draft text (specifically "deprecated SLAAC")
>> is not very clear either, but at least it's clear to me that this is
>> about address configuration, not about on/off link.
> 
> Yes, I know this is about address configuration. I am still curious if all OSes keep the /64 interface route when A changes to 0 (or is 0 to begin with). If you feel this is out of scope that's fine, then my curiosity will stay unanswered.

in the nit-picking department, wouldn't that really be the L flag?

cheers,
Ole