Re: [dhcwg] RFC 8415 question: unicast Information-request

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 29 August 2020 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 0A01F3A0890 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 l5YqhzDBG9nT for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72d.google.com (mail-qk1-x72d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ED0D3A0879 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72d.google.com with SMTP id g26so2232853qka.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=u/h9voQQZsslxuEOWYuVmtmnX7uZyrpkMxl3n3yaJ10=; b=gkjqBLVOMK9G1qA894inumyj3EcoigmKQWYji9yf4CPuiyd5CpRUmm4g8ZRYrHcy+N uRK7dKBBK03O/FwOZZztN3nOySzxhs3Ac6Jsu2klfN/eHHsXdI7pCzLwSF/4nzlBY7hB WzYvl9x8CZQLUH6oWCQ8ovr1vkmhCAt2USyBfQGcDdXVI3BjcVuTBy26a6emO3GL2Tyd m98T7cT6M3sFQZyOeF6tz0q1Er/oOjZFacT6zMRYKe+rFYnLPTLfZ7NRX5q9jU6DyVsU 16tE710+kgjIvikbQplO0sz2c1c90wPHk9RNpMM97d2dfv5FdZyjlqwJp/I/x+QTgZCA hb5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=u/h9voQQZsslxuEOWYuVmtmnX7uZyrpkMxl3n3yaJ10=; b=FBol+msm/J7JpdU6lgf1biJ7qM56DN9hL+qD8Ilyjp+M9s2w5SsOUx/Uz/yr3ufK3y QBMfTlFXcUgZaVSv8A7YrUjiUCwm4ixYgX/LtPVbLT+DPKatH/nZ2JVoFTf1Wr42rnAA H5s4dwGhiP8cCxernxzm3YHGK0IbjMjKf2IOL+A8cQ8HGULnDVEz/b+l6ZfB0sxD98tf KmDq3uxr798wWTY7Nz0vu0rgGg4eYNZKI7gpnQfeqY8jntSNpqlj+2pa6xjeZDCVjfJr ZIHnAX8bOcF5cmVGe2fBJYQr9GgcEH1EfO2UhmI6DqJpGLO3tGLEnVtO+9+R3AsTObqt 38Iw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533FNh4HAX0V7q6hdNwURNlBmO0dLwFw9oh5PQDn8ObSRyYINDyY Crljpj6G7bXmUdOUZJO7F8oh1g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVRS+VpBWtgZIXAKkxYtVS4BOGp3plXiHsKA0SFkbn3YkaPGGI2jFOBaJqcKBAM8rItkXH1g==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:58c4:: with SMTP id m187mr3331780qkb.312.1598706719749; Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:7562:7ec4:cc76:3f9? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:7562:7ec4:cc76:3f9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i14sm2539570qkn.53.2020.08.29.06.11.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <a01843af-822a-8367-c77d-a1042a39b618@united-internet.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:11:56 -0400
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7A2190B-EAD5-4F1A-A1A7-490C4EFE4D8C@fugue.com>
References: <f6e5af84-609c-51ec-58ba-cc2e9ae52d45@united-internet.de> <a01843af-822a-8367-c77d-a1042a39b618@united-internet.de>
To: Felix Hamme <fhamme@united-internet.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/3zaJDcM9_0QQx2GqoNrjZuBtl2E>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC 8415 question: unicast Information-request
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 13:12:03 -0000

The client can unicast if the server tells it to, using the Server Unicast option. The reason for this is to make sure that all DHCP packets transit the same infrastructure: if a client unicasts a packet to the server, it can reach the server via IP routing rather than DHCP relay, and may miss some information that needs to be collected about the network on the way to the server.

> On Aug 29, 2020, at 5:55 AM, Felix Hamme <fhamme@united-internet.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear DHCPv6 experts,
> 
> 
> does RFC8415 permit Information-request messages with an IPv6 unicast
> destination address?
> 
> 
> Section 16 states:
> "A server MUST discard any Solicit, Confirm, Rebind, or
> Information-request messages it receives with a Layer 3 unicast
> destination address."
> (unicast Information-request forbidden)
> 
> Section 18.2 states:
> "If the client has a source address of sufficient scope that can be
> used by the server as a return address and the client has received a
> Server Unicast option (see Section 21.12) from the server, the client
> SHOULD unicast any Request, Renew, Release, and Decline messages to
> the server."
> (unicast Information-request not mentioned)
> 
> Section 18.4 states:
> "For example, unicast transmission is not allowed for Solicit, Confirm,
> and Rebind messages (see Sections 18.3.1, 18.3.3, and 18.3.5,
> respectively), even if the Server Unicast option (see Section 21.12) is
> configured. For Request, Renew, Information-request, Release, and
> Decline messages, it is allowed only if the Server Unicast option is
> configured."
> (unicast Information-request allowed if a Server Unicast option was
> received)
> 
> Appendix B ("informational") does not permit a Server Unicast option in
> a Reconfigure message.
> 
> 
> I am not sure how to interpret those statements in total.
> 
> When sending an Information-request message in response to a Reconfigure
> message, a client needs to include a Server Identifier option (see
> section 18.2.6) to address a specific server. It appears reasonable to
> me to permit a Server Unicast option in a Reconfigure message so that a
> client can respond with an Information-request message with an unicast
> destination address.
> 
> What if the Information-request message is sent after a
> Solicit-Advertise-Request-Reply message exchange, in which the server
> sent a Server Unicast option? May a client unicast Information-request
> messages in that case?
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Felix Hamme
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg