IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 10 December 2019 18:21 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 8190F120A28 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:21:16 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 8nZICiOL3iRO for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (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 3581D120A26 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id x184so244540pfb.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:21:14 -0800 (PST)
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=eIOD32da2x5iu3Q3jtEHUQcqt484s7sv1Ry/PdL/Dyg=; b=aD/8JTm4gWsUo10JEvXi7tBGOe0OhE3NlLNe/MS8YY3GE1o9qdL3vT9YmdfXrvLmcC oo459c1/ff4VWGUQXuJFypOaRETCnTHAAkcxVr7Pqau+m9+tRNgyQN1lEMlApfA46+xo KDmG7sRLZ3M8TtDncbADUIYVGWgRkQlYVKy2BG5JVZZ8YtaeORlfcMbbVpgfyawnSPbr ys08BxMdc7sY2YZpc5NF1Dz/x4tVHvF3HFnI5iQjxRRLj/dE9M56sDt7j1HVrMbJPlU6 vV+h8Pkqsd8cu4Q2cs8/lWBx7gp9BffyGrmEywvVCtPP/0PZcb5V5XqQsP8Ae8YsHcQM /K5Q==
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=eIOD32da2x5iu3Q3jtEHUQcqt484s7sv1Ry/PdL/Dyg=; b=CQ0vozDQJ2UPv5vKfuYJTz5JaXUZRv06wAOPYQDJrQID92UuiqMdksHNGMuHNXcbsc 2MWXMECixzPVKj/lQEZBleuMWL3cJX5YTq1sS+F1fMSLjnLU666dgWIq8d4zcK8qTcN5 11JSmm14T40CqZCDuLbVXLzpOrccjJP5hAhFreDd/TpWNbpRnswpgHf9JwwYDkqmbPeX auxTWaNdMNMztM+DDDFfIAY2ReOq3FlbXFD1m/yjjWXTybsWdh2kuFbmNWvYwZ/aKNpi z/S/Hy7XxXvmIRVT5l4DYveJatXRvvP+3dws3KJ50lcvGKIRvxSPTeisb4tEQFMIcRmO j2aQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUPWhSNi7eH5sYwRMGh6HqGrUQ5MwHkegMmrNcQRFCtbLM/1RS2 xEL3u8zI9o19GQKbNdz31jycVg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwGDskuuVWGXHApjT50WX9+6eUUnfR5/vKVFSvlNlUtDAPIE3H22K+wJL2GSMFXSlAmExYuPA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:fd10:: with SMTP id d16mr25712872pgh.177.1576002073610; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.192.139.178] ([17.192.139.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e11sm3510553pjj.26.2019.12.10.10.21.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:21:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <FA8B4374-2226-4715-A228-2AD9A0EC7E10@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D0082AA3-1CC3-4E28-9966-19723BB1CC63"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.1\))
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:21:11 -0800
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61153707127@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
References: <157593507544.2098.9687007201578884820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABKWDgx5SSBP_K7BWxe4aPn9DKm-VPo62OXjsVZP8PRjfu0C2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQHkYh-EDLopUbWvw-gq8i5jttacVogKXUaJvJcBTdCOA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313E7F6E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DM6PR11MB41379502CE18C7AF513181F0CF5B0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <FB5B5DDE-9DB4-4E18-BF7E-7D9ECFCB016E@fugue.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61153707127@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/CXhhZpNM6y1549LTHmWXhA4x1u0>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-link-dhc-v6only-01.txt
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:21:16 -0000

On Dec 10, 2019, at 9:16 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
> Some CE routers are coded to have special handling for 0.0.0.0. Multiple ISPs use that address for IPTV multicast traffic (on a VLAN dedicated to that traffic). I could envision such routers having issues with getting 0.0.0.0 from DHCPv4. CE router vendors and their chipset vendors do the darnedest things sometimes (as Cloudflare discovered wrt 1.1.1.1).  I think widespread testing of CE routers is needed if the returned address is going to be required to 0.0.0.0. 

The idea here is that the returned address is bogus and won’t work.   So if the CE router tries to use it for anything, it’s going to break, whether it’s 0.0.0.0 or 192.0.0.0.

> Here is language from BBF TR-124 (requirement LAN.IGMP.ROUTED): "It MUST be possible to configure a WAN-facing IPv4 interface with an IPoE encapsulation and no IPv4 address visible by the access network. It MUST be possible to receive multicast traffic on such an interface, independent of whether upstream IGMP is sent on this interface or not. The RG's IGMP proxy-routing function MUST be able to send upstream IGMP traffic on such an interface, using an unspecified (0.0.0.0/::) IPv4 source address.”


I don’t think this would be violated.   Is DHCPv4 currently configuring an address of 0.0.0.0 for IGMP to use?  :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email