Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 27 December 2023 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87311C1516E1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 08:36:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 1L-k4RP4Jakj for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 08:36:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B6FC1516EB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 08:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C411800D; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 11:36:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 8nAGuuVYTw5R; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 11:36:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77371800C; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 11:36:22 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1703694982; bh=FyagKhzVAQy9LxV6IP0rhrOsunc1y1pn9738m09NdYM=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=vXVCBXJDCoeewnHXfKG3DTAK3pYcvHKHc1D1Ov/zi+9vUqqzGxpY2cZBLDbZyVUq+ t7T0xpzUdw49YftNZCGMdWRhIlBy8Mm8JJ9ye3ymCdfafXuI1Hn6XcGX8DBJYU81xC 7yMrAP2kA3+NlPjUQfkVUJ1ArPurSJB14ci8Rx4DFOx4u0z+v5bGDbmZRGd4gMU/XC 4ibQRNjjUlI3AFxVVnUpN5X+KkqIiPGGc4k6Z6jnOlNKBarsCF0vJ0YNqpDYtldOH8 dJwdXyWwYvVtlXyHYsvBqm+FvF5EmGqPj5KkZAXEz7+gNFmSAukOeCzvJHq0ejv4gC ppgqJiDbg5fAQ==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBBF152; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 11:36:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <260E0529-F76D-4D74-984F-7B40F691D4D5@gmail.com>
References: <22596.1703631582@localhost> <260E0529-F76D-4D74-984F-7B40F691D4D5@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 11:36:22 -0500
Message-ID: <15985.1703694982@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/281--jP_eRYCPWYaR3_L3b7nt3Y>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 16:36:30 -0000

Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> On Dec 26, 2023, at 5:59 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >> 
    >> Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> If you want to report upstream, why not just relay the notification?
    >>
    >> a) because often the local server actually needs to keep it's own database.

    > There’s no reason the notification cannot be consumed both locally and
    > forwarded. Obviously the forwarded request’s reply likely should be
    > dropped if a locally generated reply is being sent - but that’s easy
    > enough for relay to handle by adding something into the Interface ID
    > option?

Well, does the local processing result in an acknowledgement?
What if the forwarded copy gets lost?
If so, then the client stops sending, and the upstream does not get updated.

    >> b) because it might need to filter based upon which addresses are being
    >> reported about.  For instance, filter out ULAs, but keep GUAs.
    >>
    > No reason that device couldn’t filter out ones it doesn’t want to relay.

    >> c) it seems to me like the local server should perhaps be taking
    >> responsability for the delivery.

    > That is perhaps the one benefit for not relaying (see a) but I guess
    > you could change it so relayed Reply is delivered back to client (not
    > local one). This mechanism isn’t expected to be perfect since it may be
    > a while before clients even add the support (and some may never).

In domains where they care, it will get done, I think.
There is also a question of connectivity:  if the enterprise wants to collect
the ULAs that are being used in the branch office, but those ULAs are not
routed, then the replies might not come back if they are unicast.

There is another situation worth dealing with: ULAs are supposed to be routed
(and DHCPv6-PD into the branch office), but there is some "rogue" ULA at the
branch office which the printer has adopted as it's only address.  Knowing
this would be really useful in diagnosing why stuff doesn't work.
(Maybe SNAC is involved)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide