[v6ops] Re: Question about ULAs in draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2024 19:48 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 07B77C1CAF41 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:48:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lWPvRUNalEO0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 940EDC1D4CFE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2024 11:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7edb6879196so1821737a12.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:48:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1731095306; x=1731700106; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bActfzJ71sGwcLW8V7LJBSAKx48S4bvbH6ac0RO9eFk=; b=MAok+XEnMBZxglmwZchEkYvg/OCVYWdzH4VlrgCzKCReMsUIq9X5BajYPxO7iSPTT6 cjMEZFMuIb1CVyEB9vHTJ8CWeHcUFHwIjuE6y1sJ767xkMw41mg6/EBE7kCyHz+O+zMC Hx41Y/1Fi7IEEFpRtvYVdCno5oOCU9GHvw/rTmhEqVYAoYO4b4gz4JfxsR4oqchsXD6I 4S9go1MHapkGZS7bRNis2MliwGo/V+ycgoohhr2/56gl2bZNJL3EzfS9veNhh7g4WbVF /JSpNTrLBU6IGzW4CuYXxeTG1nFnKLB/RgH+Qe/B1PkF0EnRLAUmmiJhMh6PK5U5vU7U sLZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731095306; x=1731700106; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bActfzJ71sGwcLW8V7LJBSAKx48S4bvbH6ac0RO9eFk=; b=wS6xKk5SYDIlfxJITL1mwF2KH1eWSHXRwUMP1v56wG5q9qOiGeqwAq0nsnCTHXDb5T lQzeHKRGVbLjScAvcRPGDSS3d2Zp3xF4I55OkI4ZoQk0mgZZjtqsJcYlfhwTeD7lGhJk 9yRYw3sJiFJctK4IeQtJ6eitw0BZobNymIKq9zciavGh5Plj++fSI9yQl1ddJ6QgwFvZ 50PM60b3YK1QwUNHavfycICpzHkOdMogHTpqZnfzFXDUvS6S0cB4m9Z5oXgnwwl1wAXc s0jwQazqHSv/jwaWDNvYcCDp94PKVatHvO+GHKtS4qos16qvbnMbsva5qGSnbiXcGtrf 02WQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUXvAE4TBk/tlJ5DBdGk/THmeGe7I62Yp5mNoEYhiUy/Xpjd9WzE9NeEHHckb9c4n2ICUiIBQ==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz3smJHmS+r28qCxe8SXwF+SqdHnwM9CZzdRqVC6oPNZabf+sbV OFsaH00lrp+9fwIRQPUr5sbfO0NTMl/6fzOWWo32e7jRX4g1ECJT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFVew7BdnfUplCzVssDYtjXIcVJAM1DX7x51vscVMEH6XKYUWc498n0ZNOhm7X3A0PnQYk3tw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:9150:b0:1d8:a3ab:720b with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1dc228b21d9mr5371246637.9.1731095305671; Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707? ([2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-72407a151ddsm4288355b3a.146.2024.11.08.11.48.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8a575658-5a19-4f79-8094-701f88338aa2@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 08:48:21 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr0N=oqQo8wR-ZH7V5WUXwrguKO7zGJZFkUm4XhoTdiUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0N=oqQo8wR-ZH7V5WUXwrguKO7zGJZFkUm4XhoTdiUkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: NOB2FTSDUDNB4FU3WE25ACC6UXBOP74P
X-Message-ID-Hash: NOB2FTSDUDNB4FU3WE25ACC6UXBOP74P
X-MailFrom: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [v6ops] Re: Question about ULAs in draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/xqkYDAXar4yKD7-XdieJng2ARWI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>
A comment right at the end:
On 09-Nov-24 03:09, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Repeating my comment at the mike. The new text says:
>
> ====
> LPD-8: If the CE Router is configured to generate a ULA prefix as defined in ULA-1 of [RFC7084] after LAN link prefix assignment of the ULA prefixes the IPv6 CE Router MUST make the remaining IPv6 prefixes available to other routers via Prefix Delegation.
> ====
>
> Could this MUST cause CPE implementers to make the ULA prefixes available via PD, but not GUA prefixes? That seems bad. We should make it clear that CPEs must not do this.
>
> Further: per discussion, it sounds like common PD clients do not support receiving multiple prefixes from the upstream (e.g., only implement the first one). Should we say something about this? Something like:
>
> =====
> When the IPv6 CE Router delegates both GUA and ULA prefixes to downstream clients, the GUA prefix MUST appear first in the packet.
>
> When an IPv6 CE Router receives both one or more GUA and one or more ULA prefixes in a prefix delegation, and it can only support a limited number of prefixes, it MUST prefer the GUA prefixes over GUA prefixes.
> ======
>
> The second sentence is probably more appropriate for 7084bis than for cpe-lan-pd.
>
I think you meant "it MUST prefer the GUA prefixes over ULA prefixes" in the second sentence. But apart from that, I'm not sure it's correct. If a router receives (say) two GUA prefixs and two ULA prefixes, there might be scenarios where the best operational result would be to use one of each. We just can't know in the abstract. I think I'd be OK with a SHOULD, to cover all cases.
Brian
- [v6ops] Question about ULAs in draft-ietf-v6ops-c… Lorenzo Colitti
- [v6ops] Re: Question about ULAs in draft-ietf-v6o… Brian E Carpenter