IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 16 October 2020 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 AA3FB3A0B06; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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=boeing.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 wTFmnrPzLhxD; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04A93A09D5; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 09GKn8Ag022389; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:49:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1602881349; bh=Oza2jq4UMMeS/hPkvmFnrcIQCCh8udBYDmB2Lfk+UZI=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=R1PxjXPL9XBXJg1FHxF6sph3Dwysl4yAFugIvvEd8g5RbNM240jcd3BJ1x6kth+da STStjyVexgapqSkYF2+KeyddWwA3isAevKp9Ne+DBwyp47Ncj4mqgbofGTK2ctSIui KMG9Ynd7ETCU7NwwWMzClllajrTCQBmaV/kLt3xGUmvDFp9ViU0Il0jqW9NdSLiV1O Qu4jf3/lLcZcvczqjfxxM7jr2kClrrhq9d7i3tNALIGUrL0lispCpCJHk1+6pfwYq2 Fqq8CMqcMc4hMsBk50wxyWoW8jsyS5g+TAjaDl2ZO5KBvLcPzbn7Vc3mxWgbdIfWsA sPEJahnrtQ9gg==
Received: from XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-12.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.114]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 09GKn06A021234 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:49:00 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:48:59 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:48:59 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>
CC: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
Thread-Index: AdajKLVVnwghNqrLQ4229LT3ce4i4AAnrasAAAMwSKAAFDs0gAAKAuyQ
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:48:59 +0000
Message-ID: <618b9ee8ddec4957906bf715b04190a0@boeing.com>
References: <65f390e222244427bd3cbc1f58a3ec95@boeing.com> <533e7f91ae814feeb594bc42b7cd70c9@huawei.com> <c621dda1c2a348dfbe9ff86bd4170d4b@boeing.com> <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 255C413514FF929FAB67E421D2824C624D1E7F26AFC87CF0DC962D8A80FB4E722000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/8lOA5R-hbUoGxIhxGV7uywcm3IQ>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: [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 20:49:14 -0000

Ole,

> 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.

That is what I said before, but I qualified it by saying "should never forward a packet
received on the WAN interface back out the WAN interface *via a default route*."
It could be that there are more-specific routes that would cause a packet coming
into the WAN interface to go back out the WAN interface and that is OK; but, not
via a default route.

However, the further discussion seems to suggest that the delegating router needs
to be mindful of clients that maliciously or otherwise send ping-ponged self-directed
packets. I was worried that the delegating router would not be able to distinguish
CPE router A from CPE routers B, C, D in some cases. But, I am not worried about
that anymore.

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: otroan@employees.org [mailto:otroan@employees.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 11:31 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>;
> 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-
> requirements
> 
> This message was sent from outside of Boeing. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know that the content is safe.
> 
> 
> >
> > We are talking past each other, and one of us does not have a clear understanding
> > of the issue at the heart of the discussion which I see as a forwarding plane issue
> > having nothing to do with the control plane.
> 
> Well, the forwarding plane just does what it's told.
> When you set up DHCP with static routes at both ends, which are maintained by snooping on a protocol. It's not inconceivable that
> there are cases where you'd get a routing loop. Good thing we have the HLIM field. ;-)
> 
> Markus' draft is still the most authorative document discussion the solution space:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-v6ops-pd-route-maintenance-00
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole=

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email