IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-02.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 05 March 2018 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 A304C1270A7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 21:54:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 XbBqd_vd_IpC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 21:54:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (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 5F49B126CC4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 21:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id w63so8035034ita.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Mar 2018 21:54:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=boUP+wq7niBxB3dWkVUWln/5OPw17GmwaLRh6cW6lQ4=; b=jskfCmSXhtc8uHjT6y7Ib2GFtmOJqrt0iIWc/yQTHGiox0fxonhlRC3xtbuZWwSyEy AGmSyI4eHIQuBjqUp/d8/QTeCAI9S+vgHh6mlTi4CH2l5OHAZk6scdhWYe1ROwLT6iNB i/COFmuf25WDdrbU96w9ZP0cuXuI6HyfUvQaWg7V4pHdtyN7M6vOVUWDe6h+uX7YdGJC cnkJU3En0X1O6HdC3k1Vod1q7oS5ViWM4ElAQxse5zWsbWIcNPGu5UUSlJwxrWY5rBE6 w/syRi+3zdYBaZpevnljg2l9EMmiyZ43F8tQ+6IrrLnejhxT7RXrsJb2kkE7P+bKVRbB d0qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=boUP+wq7niBxB3dWkVUWln/5OPw17GmwaLRh6cW6lQ4=; b=Su8+0GarMMER3UzvpqMorxcx+7enQXemYYmN5OKsZbIrt3f5qLD4pnkfz1ZwO4balp OIWxo2Qc7BS8Pi907dNR7nWROi83Tw6G3WgEUBF1fuKt10epMXScQmT3Pu2h2h06Y+Dd bfdG8noilA0+ltOdTFgeUAv5XK9m7zdQQrejvhfCtOotA9VHYtw4/Zoe7AzNP+TMfzDs rZBnFO6OJTtoYFB04pYDfamsQ9SjlgkGrpzzN6EjxeUGr/55yUg2SUIzAgNcLzglM6mq c4DPoSdX1GBOFglXC/WFI9GG2M+1SF0gr9I4JyeSQfXiOD4EHSQzB62Qf0tYIN4T8w8l 887g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Fe5u+K/hM1FgMHk6WkGhnc159Y/+Ic067XRL+RCr+qaa8b4nWb 7aY6aYVIv7pIzqSX5jZ4AA5ImP+P
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELui48NhPQnw2oAX8kqa7Vjcag4eb3+fsIA8c2/LhuG9e9IKfn5wJ/ZcKwABC2o8MZZ5dR8qyQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.74.148 with SMTP id k142mr12811016itb.115.1520229247544; Sun, 04 Mar 2018 21:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.64.93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l18sm1132538itl.1.2018.03.04.21.54.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 04 Mar 2018 21:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Brian Carpenter <becarpenter46@gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <152021615239.27925.6946415833371012617@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr00qjz7z8VF5=WeZ+baBPxJfmnYVhvNqKn_m7gu9H2GTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab17f374-a24d-0296-539e-7138e5da6a20@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:54:01 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr00qjz7z8VF5=WeZ+baBPxJfmnYVhvNqKn_m7gu9H2GTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/oIw7cGm3YtHgC9L6Gzv3RWUMyZo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-02.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 05 Mar 2018 05:54:12 -0000

On 05/03/2018 18:08, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:15 AM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>>         Title           : Requirements for IPv6 Routers
>>         Authors         : Zaid Ali Kahn
>>                           John Brzozowski
>>                           Russ White
>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-02.txt
>>
> 
> I continue to object to the one-size-fits all approach taken in the
> document. 

I think the problem starts with the title.

"Requirements for Enterprise IPv6 Routers"
or
"Requirements for Fully Featured IPv6 Routers"
would be more like it. I expected to see much more text about
scoping added at the start of the document.

Probably, looking ahead to a network of 10^12 nodes with massive
amounts of mesh networking, the large majority of devices that
forward IP packets will not require most of these features.

    Brian

> Here are two examples of how that leads to harmful outcomes.
> 
> Saying that mobile phones (which forward IPv6 packets when the user desires
> them to) should support YANG, SNMP, and syslog would just be ridiculous if
> it wasn't harmful (because it creates the potential for a security
> vulnerability - the more remote management code running on the device, the
> greater the risk of vulnerability).
> 
> Saying that mobile phones must support DHCPv6 is harmful, because:
> 
>    - If DHCPv6 is enabled, it's harmful to users for the reasons explained
>    in https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg26286.html .
>    - If DHCPv6 is disabled, it's harmful to users because somebody wrote
>    code for something that's never enabled.
>    - I don't think there will ever be any other choices than the above two,
>    since no popular OS will provide a configuration mechanism for the user to
>    enable/disable DHCPv6 on the mobile hotspot. (If you don't agree with that
>    assertion then consider: those OSes don't even allow the user to
>    enable/disable IPv6. Why would they allow the user to enable/disable
>    DHCPv6?)
> 
> Authors: the last time v6ops dealt with a "kitchen sink shopping list"
> document of this sort was RFC 7849. That document generated a lot of noise
> on the mailing lists, went back and forth for many months, and ended up
> being withdrawn as a WG document and published as individual submission
> which has zero normative value. I assume that's not your desired goal for
> this document? If so, I would suggest adding an applicability statement
> that clarifies that not every piece of equipment under the sun that ever
> happens to forward an IPv6 packet must meet these requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email