Re: [v6ops] M/O flags and PD

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Fri, 30 October 2015 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@Space.Net>
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 054461B2D50 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ECwr_pUbunF8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (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 9CB951B2C7A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AE862F1E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:21:32 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2AD460274 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:21:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 49678 invoked by uid 1007); 30 Oct 2015 09:21:31 +0100
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:21:31 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Message-ID: <20151030082131.GC70452@Space.Net>
References: <20151019195001.22760.2580.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5AB28826-8E45-461F-AA7B-5D45F218FC18@cisco.com> <20151028113851.530c649d@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAJE_bqd1263SaqU61sqqk_4Tne1GzE4_kMUhuLMgY42Cyc6m_A@mail.gmail.com> <5631232E.4020701@gmail.com> <20151029203951.06a4d4fd@envy.fud.no> <39B7C63D-A31A-4F3D-8487-5A9FF917F939@employees.org> <20151030075849.5ad90ed6@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <20151030073854.GZ70452@Space.Net> <20151030091055.2b050875@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="95IR4Z1jyAeb17Hd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151030091055.2b050875@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/xBqq9A88xgvOtvRDxsxSYSVqeM0>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, jinmei@wide.ad.jp
Subject: Re: [v6ops] M/O flags and PD
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: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:21:37 -0000

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:10:55AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
> 
> > I do not have RFCs to counter that, but my interpretation is a bit
> > different.  I see that section of 4861 as traditionally applied to 
> > *hosts*, while IA_PD traditionally is a *router* function, so out of 
> > scope for the "host part" of 4861.
> 
> Section 4.2 of RFC 4861 simply describes the RA message format, it's
> not in a "host part" of the RFC as far as I can tell. Keep in mind that
> RAs are typically multicast to all IPv6 nodes, so the originating router
> does not know whether it is a host or a router (or both, or none) that
> will be receiving the RA.

Yes, but that is the point - "typical routers" do not need to *listen* to 
RAs, because that's not required for their job.  They will speak a 
routing protocol, and not default-route, etc.

As I said, boundaries between "hosts" and "router" are less than clear
today - but this is my interpretation on how these have come into place.

> Thus, when determining whether or not to set the M/O flags, the
> [operator configuring the] RA originating router will have to ask
> himself the following question:
> 
> «Is there information available through DHCPv6 to nodes on this link?»
> 
> If the answer to that question is «yes», the M or O flag should be set.
> If the answer is «no», they should be both unset.

There might not even *be* a RA if this is a pure router-to-router link...

> > Now this gets all muddled together when you have a router that also 
> > wants an address for itself (= acting as a host for that purpose) or 
> > a host that wants a prefix (= serving as a router for that prefix).
> 
> I'll note that this discussion started with a comment on
> draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host. This draft talks about
> hosts, not routers. It even says so right there in the file name and
> the title.

True, but as soon as a host requests a prefix for "a bunch of VMs" running
on that same host, and forwards traffic between "the outside router" and
"the various VMs", it very much becomes a router...

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279