IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 16 October 2020 18:51 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 4F0BB3A0808 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 1MiS0Zb918wl for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (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 A10203A07D7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id l16so3765003ilj.9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=hI+GIxCsslpmlIbxWoeG9JjwZGwg1cqCk+TS7r4yggg=; b=rmSAIrLe0UHo8ExZj0Sdkc2F9/JRanetF3UvLJn7aOH56FPzIeA/g1yn8+0FT295jT Ukc8h/vCgL0Mbe/4YW/hZhOTZVnI647rblHSa9/i1tCXFrmeIx7kdBfMfrm0z696jau0 2xVa1dYRhdQ/oinTnH+p1DufLBEjYkUl0qdtCI75bkMIDwr4ee5UzdcAZqiwZwyRuXhC PHJhcR6TqO/KpRB6ly8InqxgLi+WNW++rtf/l75SplCTJNXdb9M0hSjH6OIFEG7Iq4E/ p4OA3GIs7FyXfqOwxgt0tdfkM50reBUdb94k+zWBgHt9VaaboVK8gHbd6GTWcJe9otHl ANLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=hI+GIxCsslpmlIbxWoeG9JjwZGwg1cqCk+TS7r4yggg=; b=QTTsglFcj/HnwKQ9RviLjdCfXOWnYsbnYLwknRoDAdggcjBGQcSwMQLaAWxtnkEuCa Uv6cwkQmtTgwReEqWBhRmLajVMozaiqu2SFGrkhNv8l2ens4fLY0QtRsMhU29ZUPnIEW HlBZq836rrzUPiYDCUPBGQp/h+OPb9ascLaZ+nx2M1WHxoCvflKJ6McGO+AkAoy5oT3Z MYrrRHHLtjoBvGd9Fhm06WOeWI2aePIfRo2djaCMv8ny/RFmQbYXgPaPVtnLeMYic1xe muLnZj6A2Og8koWdzlfpDAKt/IH9MLFjPfe0g1JoEuP/gIu1thdYn0dReNDdwcsPxyJ7 8fyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WnOyKVQBI/saJiTQq8ir7AWDrlomyU6X9GssISuDd6G6I3qIZ MpuRIkr7EH/L7WLbtUefBEoYyg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8krYjOWK3aBEIRHhQ+kKeJoiztfFSFqHeb/yWtWFZFcOP+6NTchJ4ImV3l3gfeov+GmWW2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:e05:: with SMTP id a5mr3505625ilk.96.1602874277939; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mithrandir.lan (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q83sm3497868ili.16.2020.10.16.11.51.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <EE880685-1C83-4E60-BE50-24172B0690D1@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_45729ABD-7594-4187-80B9-05941E489AED"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.0.3.2.82\))
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:51:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <65f390e222244427bd3cbc1f58a3ec95@boeing.com> <533e7f91ae814feeb594bc42b7cd70c9@huawei.com> <c621dda1c2a348dfbe9ff86bd4170d4b@boeing.com> <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.0.3.2.82)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/6bfIAypbs_xakBan7Buti35B2gU>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
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: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:51:21 -0000

On Oct 16, 2020, at 2:30 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> The CPE requirements document could have had a requirement that it should never forward a packet received on the WAN interface back out the WAN interface.

It’s unfortunate that it doesn’t have a rule that it should never forward a packet received on the LAN interface back to the LAN interface.

I wonder what’s happening in practice. We have quite a lot of devices in the world doing DHCPv6 PD. How is it that we aren’t seeing reports of routing loops? Are they just humming away silently, consuming LAN bandwidth, or are routers already doing the right thing?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email