Re: IPv6 WG Call for Adoption:draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
>     This is a consensus call on whether the IPv6 WG should adopt:
>
> 	Title		: Consideration M and O Flags of IPv6 Router 
> Advertisement
> 	Author(s)	: S. Park, et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
> 	Pages		: 12
> 	Date		: 2004-10-25
>
> as a WG document.  Comments and opinions can be sent to the
> mailing list and/or the chairs.  We will accept comments on this
> call until 11/05/2004.

I think this is valuable clarifying work, and a good starting point 
for the work.  I think it's worth adopting.

A couple of comments on the draft for improvement:

- just a question on how full DHCPv6 client works with stateless 
DHCPv6 server:

  If M-Policy is 1, the host SHOULD invoke Host Configuration Behaviour
   for address and other configuration information, regardless of the
   change of the state variables.  The host SHOULD NOT invoke
   Information Configuration Behaviour regardless of O-Policy.  Note,
   however, that if the available DHCPv6 servers only provide the
   service for the Information Configuration Behaviour, the host will
   even not be able to configure other configuration parameters than
   addresses.  Thus, it is generally inadvisable to set M-Policy to 1,
   unless there is a particular reason to do so.

==> is it really true that if a full DHCPv6 client is initiated, and 
the server is 'stateless', the DHCPv6 client doesn't get back the 
stateless information?

That would seem to be a big problem for DHCPv6 deployment if servers 
are stateless, and I think someone has claimed that this shouldn't be 
a problem.

If the text you wrote is correct, that would mean that to get robust 
behaviour, the host would have to either rely that the capabilities of 
the DHCPv6 servers match those that are advertised in the route 
advertisements, or to always just "prepare for the worst" by firing 
off a parallel information-request as well.

And then it would seem to make sense for prudent DHCPv6 implementers 
to do everything they can to ensure they'll receive information-reply 
from stateful servers as well.. because that's better than nothing, 
and better than relying on how the bits in RAs have been configured!

- minor issue wrt inconsistent M/O information:

   If the host frequently receives inconsistent M and O flags of Router
   Advertisement (e.g., in a mobile environment for supporting fast
   movement detection), it may need complex consideration on an
   erroneous case.  However, this case is not closely related to this
   document; rather, it is a general issue on the inconsistent Router
   Advertisement parameters from multiple routers.  In fact, other
   configuration parameters such as the MTU size and the hop limit are
   also possible to be inconsistent in different Router Advertisements.

==> actually M/O is IMHO a bit worse than these two, because these are 
just internal variables, typically implemented in the kernel, and 
toggling back and forth between them is not a problem.

Presumably, initiating DHCPv6 requires running a non-trivial user-land 
process.  Hence, I'd dare to say that the transitions are a bigger 
problem with M/O flags, as has already been discussed a bit in 
security considerations.

Thus I'd like to see some further text, e.g. 1-2 sentences, describing 
why M/O transitions are a bigger problem than other inconsistent 
information.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------