Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion - address out of the delegated prefix, on the egress - no DAD

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 03 November 2015 10:05 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 BF0401B2EA6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 02:05:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 oyN0Yk6CCRH0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 02:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-mbsout-02.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.32.232]) (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 7C19A1B3146 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 02:05:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id tA3A5Qgq025145; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 02:05:27 -0800
Received: from XCH-PHX-109.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-109.sw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.36]) by blv-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id tA3A5PT1025131 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 02:05:25 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.14]) by XCH-PHX-109.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.9.155]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 02:05:23 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion - address out of the delegated prefix, on the egress - no DAD
Thread-Index: AQHRFgcqdk6EvbJyb0KpuVefeTAGTp6KjPIA//+DtcA=
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:05:22 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F39C80@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <8D175A1F-B1AE-44B4-838E-1C853B6C937D@cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F391A7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr15C-uoxUw0kgWO-d=LmUK8qWGLS7vt+22W+k8xXtDY+g@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F393F1@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3941D@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5638223E.5090404@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F39A27@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <56387D50.9060305@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <56387D50.9060305@gmail.com>
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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/myxLD-R7n8nwJM-pDss0gs21ouA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion - address out of the delegated prefix, on the egress - no DAD
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:05:27 -0000

Hi Alex,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 1:25 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L; v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion - address out of the delegated prefix, on the egress - no DAD
> 
> 
> 
> Le 03/11/2015 16:13, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops
> >> [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 6:56 PM To: v6ops@ietf.org Subject:
> >> Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion -
> >> address out of the delegated prefix, on the egress - no DAD
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 03/11/2015 10:31, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> >>> Bumping up one level - is it clear to everyone that it is OK to
> >>> assign addresses taken from a DHCPv6 delegated prefix to the
> >>> interface over which the prefix was received? And, that DAD is
> >>> not required for those addresses?
> >>
> >> This indeed new enough at least to me.
> >>
> >> I agree that if the prefix is delegated for Host with DHCP-PD then
> >> it has a tighter bind to that Host, tighter than a prefix
> >> _advertised_ to it with an RA.
> >>
> >> In that sense, certainly yes the Host may self-form and assign an
> >> address on its interface over which the application DHCP-PD
> >> received it earlier.
> >>
> >> And, since the prefix is administratively unique, it would make
> >> little sense for the Host to DAD that address on that interface.
> >>
> >> Moreover, it would bring some advantages for privacy.  Privacy
> >> addresses as we know them make only the IID variable, while still
> >> keeping a trackable prefix (the advertised prefix).  With this way
> >> of prefix delegation, the Host may decide more ways to obfuscate
> >> its identity: use sometimes the allocated prefix, other times the
> >> advertised prefix, in some hard-to-detect sequence.
> >>
> >> But, if a Host forms an address out of the delegated prefix and
> >> wants to talk to its Gateway on that interface, maybe it wants to
> >> send an RA to that Gateway so the Gateway forms an address out of
> >> the delegated prefix too.  At that point DAD would be needed.
> >
> > "Host sends an RA to the Gateway" doesn't make any sense that I am
> > aware of.
> 
> I should have said "to the link on which the Gateway is present".
> 
> On a shared link, where each such Host is delegated a prefix (no prefix
> advertised by the RA from the gateway), these Hosts will want to reach
> each other directly w/o being ICMP Redirected by the Gateway.  Which
> address should such a Host use to reach its neighbor.

Each host will initially have only a default route pointing to a router on
the shared link and no on-link prefix. For host-to-host communications
on the link, there would need to be a redirect. Is that bad?

Thanks - Fred

> 
> Alex
> 
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks - Fred
> >>>
> >>> *From:*v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> >>> *Templin, Fred L *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 5:24 PM *To:*
> >>> Lorenzo Colitti *Cc:* v6ops@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [v6ops]
> >>> draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
> >>>
> >>> Hi Lorenzo,
> >>>
> >>> Responses below in "green":
> >>>
> >>> *From:*Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com] *Sent:*
> >>> Monday, November 02, 2015 5:04 PM *To:* Templin, Fred L *Cc:*
> >>> Fred Baker (fred); v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability
> >>> discussion
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Templin, Fred L
> >>> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I have one text addition suggestion and one question. On P. 7,
> >>> in Table 1, suggest adding a new final row as follows:
> >>>
> >>> requires DAD               Yes                  Yes No N/A
> >>>
> >>> Meaning that multi-addresses configured by SLAAC or DHCPv6
> >>> IA_NA/IA_TA must use DAD to check for duplicates on the link
> >>> they were obtained. In a multi-addressing environment where
> >>> millions of addresses are required, this could amount to a
> >>> substantial amount of DAD multicast traffic. On the other hand,
> >>> DAD is not needed for DHCPv6 PD because the network has
> >>> unambiguously delegated the prefix for the node's exclusive use.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think "Requires DAD: No" is correct. Even if the device
> >>> gets a /64 prefix entirely for its own use, it still needs to do
> >>> DAD with any other devices on that /64 (e.g., tethered devices,
> >>> VMs, etc.).
> >>>
> >>> I'm not opposed to adding a line to the table, though I don't
> >>> think it provides much value - if we put our mind to it, I'm sure
> >>> we could come up with lots of things we could add to the table
> >>> that aren't there at the moment. My main concern is that if we
> >>> add something to the table it needs to be correct.
> >>>
> >>> What I mean is "Requires DAD on the interface over which the
> >>> prefix was received",
> >>>
> >>> but that was too long to fit in the table. Let's call the
> >>> interface "A". If the node gets
> >>>
> >>> SLAAC addresses or DHCP IA_NA/IA_TA addresses over interface
> >>> "A", then it needs
> >>>
> >>> to do DAD on interface "A" for each such address. If the node
> >>> gets a DHCPv6 PD
> >>>
> >>> over interface "A", however, it does not need to do DAD over
> >>> interface "A" at all.
> >>>
> >>> If the node assigns the delegated prefix to interface "B", then
> >>> you are right that
> >>>
> >>> that DAD will be required among all tethered devices, VMs, etc.
> >>> on interface "B".
> >>>
> >>> But, there will still be no need for DAD on interface "A". Does
> >>> that clarify?
> >>>
> >>> I have a question also on table 1. Under ""Unlimited" endpoints",
> >>> why does it say "no" for DHCPv6 PD? I think it should say "yes"
> >>> instead, since a prefix obtained by DHCPv6 PD can be used to
> >>> configure an unlimited number of addresses on the link over which
> >>> the prefix was received.
> >>>
> >>> The table is written from the perspective of the network
> >>> assigning addresses to devices that connect to it. Therefore, it
> >>> says "no" because if you use DHCPv6 PD you can't assign address
> >>> space to an unlimited number of endpoints - you are limited to
> >>> however many /64s you have available.
> >>>
> >>> If you use IA_NA or SLAAC, any network with a /64 subnet has, at
> >>> least in theory, an "unlimited" number of addresses to assign to
> >>> clients. Of course, that's only true in theory. In practice,
> >>> there's going to be a limit due to scaling reasons.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand this. True that SLAAC and DHCPv6 IA_NA/IA_TA
> >>> can be used
> >>>
> >>> to assign an unlimited number of addresses to interface "A". But,
> >>> so can DHCPv6
> >>>
> >>> PD. When the node receives the delegated prefix (e.g., a /64), it
> >>> can assign as
> >>>
> >>> many unique IPv6 addresses as it likes to interface "A". And
> >>> again, it need not
> >>>
> >>> do DAD for any of them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________ 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
> >