Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-03.txt> (Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host) to Best Current Practice

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 25 May 2017 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 8687D128792 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 dTEriA1gqQIu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22b.google.com (mail-ua0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22b]) (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 AC58A126CF9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id u10so124015292uaf.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qrv6v4C4KwmDpu4Annv2kJRQBQo6zHdS43tJQm5x3JE=; b=CbjFG55JDSlTie9/wtyXSPNxp9ntcfbQiiVo2ixUm5bkEIphLNnNnP9x7ukGKKfnu8 CduXGlH/BeBEsqix0aT+Q3q4JbGwuvrJWLRm0jipzwkHuOB7R9zfFW01LGNtVb9J7jcn UVpALKquRIiyXBxdnCxBr6HpNY6DxSf6l26/9bkf+QUivuBE3zKx4t+czIBcjd99edPK jgD/Kt4+yHp0CZVQasARv2VTQ/1ZYokKp8B2m/+1wpeCw/TDiRzzSbHiZhkTTNtgukA/ es4axyQ72HUJeTrj2mjKhxYTjDSCUSt9WwPV5gCYMiEZjrcmKs4Q2mhq+nhqH8x/cioo HCaw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qrv6v4C4KwmDpu4Annv2kJRQBQo6zHdS43tJQm5x3JE=; b=YMbUhGveaFuFH+ihI2N9kriTbcDHHHqlvphRnoJURicwAuP6zl+4G6uXBUca24/szf KKHnZh3hS/bARqlEzPzcr8/M35N5poi0jyyh2P8KU2n7pSaT1N3hdB8jGC8+73UC+As1 Ly1gjU9liPsdsCRHYBzI76IPBCJn5pz14dvT6EMtmZQqxNmje4dJv9L7F/y4FSJGiGtE dq1elIrCngPfFM6YvQ4EgHnwalGS7AAz47BJEku5w0xTbC3Og0jmbPsrXKn3pgus+oVi DhED11i4O9bDK4UdP+McCRzP4OsxwU0Z8+xDoDw8QS5eM9J04ROjZbDZ34LALrZEYA46 PyPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBq4rgvJKMSs0xvKmbgkzFcJOtGgTWtHzorHh70MXRdjlJ6Q9Pj DH9nAVF/Wxtvc96JtqtlEAJwBFUIUWJy
X-Received: by 10.176.95.201 with SMTP id g9mr6080035uaj.71.1495753965609; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.168.138 with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <149556850339.28443.2716896366216678645.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <149556850339.28443.2716896366216678645.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 16:12:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2sd188MB-ogQQbqHkDtf4Q-5d1ZsV2fC+fsoegiMCpFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08204dd8cb05650550615b05"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pGNQsgYDKl_hHHPB30Q2v03vxLs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-03.txt> (Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host) to Best Current Practice
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: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:12:50 -0000

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:41 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
> consider the following document:
> - 'Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host'
>   <draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-03.txt> as Best Current
> Practice
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.


 I think this is a desirable way to configure public IPv6 network access
and support the publication of this document as BCP. I see a couple issues
that probably need to be resolved before publication:

1. Off-link flag.

   If the UE/
   subscriber desires to send anything external including other UE/
   subscriber devices (assuming device to device communications is
   enabled and supported), then, due to the L-bit set, it SHOULD send
   this traffic to the First Hop Provider Router.

I think the document might need to say what the First Hop Provider Router
needs to do in the case when it the host sends the router a packet for a
destination in the same prefix as the host. (This can happen since L=0.) It
seems that the router could simply turn around and send an NS for that IPv6
address, which would likely just end up going back to the host. Seems like
we might want to avoid that.

2. If this document is to be a BCP, then the RA timers should probably not
be a part of this document. They are over-prescriptive, and they conflict
with the suggestions in RFC 7772, which says:

      In order to limit the amount of power used to receive Router
      Advertisements to, say, 2% of idle power (i.e., to impact idle
      battery life by no more than 2%), the average power budget for
      receiving RAs must be no more than 0.1 mA, or approximately 7 RAs
      per hour.

That argues for an RA interval of > 500 seconds, which is half the power
consumption of the value in this document (300 seconds).

Cheers,
Lorenzo