Re: [v6ops] seek comments and contributions to: draft-xiao-v6ops-nd-deployment-guidelines

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Okay, thanks for the clarification!

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 4:18 PM Xipengxiao <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
>
>
> Thank you for providing feedback.  From your objection, I realize that the
> draft title may lead people to think that we *universally* recommend
> “host isolation”.  That is not the case.  The draft clearly states the pros
> and cons of L2 & L3 host isolation (Section 3.1), and how to decide whether
> to apply host isolation (Section 3.2).  Now please see my response to your
> comments below.
>
>
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> Isolating hosts would cause a lot of damage in home networks where there
> is no operator to control what hosts can do what. At a minimum you need
> something like MUD to make this work. E.g., this would completely break
> existing Thread (a 6lowpan mesh netwoek) Border routers which rely on
> multicast working. It would also break multicast DNS service discovery for
> the same reason.
>
>
>
> *[XX] You are right, but the draft doesn’t recommend isolating hosts for
> home networks. In Section 5, the draft says “[HomeNet] will end at Step 4:
> using normal ND with no special host isolation.”*
>
>
>
> This is not a new insight, and unfortunately the belief that this will
> work causes a lot of problems that are hard for end users to diagnose.
> Please do not publish this advice.
>
> *[XX] By “this is not a new insight”, I think you were referring to past
> works like RFC8273 “Unique Prefix Per Host (UPPH)”. I would like to point
> out that our recommendations are not identical to RFC8273. To the best of
> my knowledge, this draft has the following uniqueness:*
>
> *1.     *It’s the 1st draft to clearly distinguish L2 isolation and L3
> isolation.  UPPH is just L3 isolation.  We also analyzed the pros and cons
> of both L2 isolation and L3 isolation.
>
> *2.     *We are fully aware of the debate before UPPH became RFC8273. We
> carefully analyzed it.  A good amount of insights were expressed in that
> lengthy debate from both sides, but such valuable insights were scattered
> in 100+ messages and were kind of lost. We summarized the key points from
> both sides in Sections 3.1 & 4 so that these insights were preserved.
>
> *3.     *We provided the most comprehensive summary of known ND issues
> and solutions (e.g. more comprehensive than RFC6583 or RFC9099). We also
> provided guidelines on how to select different solutions.
>
> In case I am mistaken and any of the above is not unique, please kindly
> point me to the existing literature.
>
> This draft came from the co-authors’ desire to answer our own ND
> questions.  It took many months of effort and reading of large number of
> RFCs. We believe our summary and recommendations will benefit the
> community.  Therefore, I would like to plead to the community to give it a
> chance:  please read and comment.  Thank you very much.
>
> XiPeng
>
>
>
>
>