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

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Thu, 15 October 2020 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 6874A3A1370; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=DeDThSBx; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=XuCANCAp
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 RCFpkTNM5eGd; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E9733A11D1; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7588; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602759251; x=1603968851; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=tRsBswEfEkoNkuoHJS3LdEgYnGukhlpEJULktQo+Sz4=; b=DeDThSBxdkzezSGVomvQ3wXWyZxKXCSrmZjjcDu1MWgsppzrHcsL1ZuA /HOrU2WNsFz4p74Wgu9ImjWUoLmHl2KoHLVCVa0eV+WpUgy7gYWdTST47 /VmT+6PUQAjTdqmnh96fJMkyLHe79c2EvX83FxgVPAQPFrlKDzHxJ3cw+ 0=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AE9UIOxIBYjNxUINWu9mcpTVXNCE6p7X5OBIU4Z?= =?us-ascii?q?M7irVIN76u5InmIFeGvK0/g1rZG47c7qEMh+nXtvXmXmoNqdaEvWsZeZNBHx?= =?us-ascii?q?kClY0NngMmDcLEbC+zLPPjYyEgWsgXUlhj8iK0NFgTE8H7NBXep3So5msUHR?= =?us-ascii?q?PyfQN+OuXyHNvUiMK6n+C/8pHeeUNGnj24NLhzNx6x6w7Ws5ob?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CzBwCzKYhf/4MNJK1gHgEBCxIMQIF?= =?us-ascii?q?EC4FSUQdwWS8sCoQzg0YDjSsmihGOaoEugSUDVQsBAQENAQEYCwoCBAEBgVW?= =?us-ascii?q?CdQIXgXECJTUIDgIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFcgEBAQMBAQEQEREMAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?sCwEEBwQCAQgOAwQBAQECAh8HAgICHwYLFQgIAgQOBSKDBAGCSwMOIAEOoGI?= =?us-ascii?q?CgTmIYXaBMoMBAQEFhSENC4IQAwaBDiqCcoNuhlYbggCBECgMEIJNPoIaQgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BgV8XD4JxM4ItkC2DI6NYVAqCapVjhQsDH6FKoQuSTgIEAgQFAg4BAQWBVgI?= =?us-ascii?q?2gVdwFTsqAYI+UBcCDY4fDBcUgzqFFIVCdDgCBgEJAQEDCXyMOwGBEAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,378,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="563126551"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 15 Oct 2020 10:54:09 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09FAs8PV024195 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:54:09 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 05:54:08 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 05:54:08 -0500
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:54:08 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=DiG0cqfD7Po6cAQ0DbIJVkMpoKOkUkTOlM1MCbQZ7u3UsFdo6OmiK5Kr7xBQ9xfOjl+P22ZfLrqS78yiTYADb2qzgjspS3iM1EoLMML7njsdkJjc1OP5Hvjkoi4ba8wJk3mS0wWrjSNqTyJq9QPvicwYzAY6nH4/Iea4AlsrYW11O5Sl9CdQqxJ7T3NnGrCs8QcEKFLI5esl1Pidc/p2x83ytat8Kvuf8fv/fzDwZRz7/KlylilmguiASEdsblzl51TkLSc0zd3/WN2BwUHdLNGc+I04ZYCjgJ5II8M6he8egFk8HcdShYzgqqtG88IX70UBZYVVvK+fqCyLFOJbEQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tRsBswEfEkoNkuoHJS3LdEgYnGukhlpEJULktQo+Sz4=; b=LQTZHU0oa6zwa0zT1UlPS9iJX/p/MqcV4CXxXwjoMfDPXOhs53KytWMvta/6w2YIKShcELdAKkTq4fGfEEz8BDFlC1QFdMdJuNL4MSee4kB/94577D7/URfAGTXphkW+oC3zQllNCnSyqKNPY+3zBVLgrLz3e8kjiDvli6mdbddW+iakeg8MrfuCcGoynH3tItTWXENuKkpUA3oLeXOT7X6GsucEELUFJHHchn0UAS9lZvT5TxIHn7gAZB6P3VqIo3+fVd6Jt+sUXJLE86N2Gx3OnIUsyEXXLJwODvvce2LLW8sMr+mArTrbrbgNGv8ZSVq7Q6yqRysDAF4yZ9kdGQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tRsBswEfEkoNkuoHJS3LdEgYnGukhlpEJULktQo+Sz4=; b=XuCANCAprjZ+0tlYjYFVUnkwPI8wJ56ErQJNHY7ckhAUlSQU2V5vNmpZY/upl2YsteHJD7b9ikBzlapBAW+Hj6ttaJIldGQj/I4tb1QcvoCAitO97Q5XYAfTlO1h+QdrG3azw605ZYhuwvIwg9kaMnzskZNx9dOGohDslBqfY9I=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:c4::33) by BYAPR11MB2647.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:be::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3455.21; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:54:06 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2cd2:d609:5fb7:4d27]) by BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2cd2:d609:5fb7:4d27%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3455.027; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:54:06 +0000
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
CC: "ianfarrer@gmx.com" <ianfarrer@gmx.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops list" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
Thread-Index: AQHWoWMb7h/SuZNgk0iBKtkQ2d57eamVg+CAgAJkrICAAJevlw==
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:54:06 +0000
Message-ID: <6F3C1913-D1DB-425E-8055-CFA9F98926A4@cisco.com>
References: <5F6947F2-F7DF-4907-8DD5-28C2B20A91DE@gmx.com> <CAFU7BAT87uhUKZM-G9MjCgtmGbdCwXorP3SfMJm7_Ax7pvwDjg@mail.gmail.com> <f2a9e0188cd84f52adce279cfb04cbcc@boeing.com> <D259F559-8528-428A-A9DF-0D9FB07E6BE4@gmx.com> <BN7PR11MB2547029C572CB32F3C593AD7CF0B0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ff36a6d9f0834b5bbf331c6c40df16b8@boeing.com> <A0B74F43-07A4-47C2-B773-3F2071CFCED3@cisco.com> <CAFU7BARUKw_c2c9+3k9kJ0UqrATTruGKPGkVb5NPTo=vspb0NA@mail.gmail.com> <19432.1602258078@localhost> <644565BC-5818-4244-A34A-1B39C3FC9175@gmx.com> <BYAPR11MB25496B31F581D4E32D46542ACF040@BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>, <CAFU7BARy-GFLDx=jRPu8Mst_Lc9fVRNTMT1MxOpEKqJ+qq9oaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BARy-GFLDx=jRPu8Mst_Lc9fVRNTMT1MxOpEKqJ+qq9oaw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmx.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [24.233.121.124]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 08e90c98-dcf6-4e2c-6cd6-08d870f8a360
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2647:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB2647FF7DCB23C8B89741BC18CF020@BYAPR11MB2647.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: EB/H77akT/SCnNrbQ1DU9xPFq+uqjC1r+1kRhJYkG/D4qy4WoQlrQLhYm8nNzVvYQu/2vlJU6yOnCofN4FtyNeTmRJEx9WRTVr+cgi/9TdKHV+7H3nHLSbd3PsbEB0hNqU1I+iakfZwKEHEYQ6giAw4Em3GZXlToHnFNRHCYvp1fMfTmVHSMWLsFWKR5U5Y2D6W2bNMJbXun5xmEVEelhzhMuvjxFiM9ZZ+IB0K/Wnw38T7XbyhFpxWdJz5YYEM9ZfZ9EA84rs1YecXSEJCASkKP9/Jfy0OJvljqPK6VU5gHAr4nwyezZkq1JH2YKmGkmxIGRErfHOQJcx7pFon23oaRkcwsMk6zA00+pIfxhCMAE85tw2sSUqWkhNNL80tq36f0mxel6A5yeTzZid+jaPapF6ZZbIs/K4jVhuGQQTYPg+jRuFCmFJOOkajKvutGbj9womxPyvwR5+uRl4oMlQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(346002)(376002)(396003)(53546011)(26005)(36756003)(186003)(71200400001)(316002)(5660300002)(76116006)(66476007)(66446008)(66556008)(66946007)(6512007)(91956017)(2616005)(2906002)(64756008)(54906003)(86362001)(8936002)(478600001)(6486002)(966005)(4326008)(6916009)(6506007)(66574015)(83380400001)(33656002)(83080400001)(8676002)(518174003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 08e90c98-dcf6-4e2c-6cd6-08d870f8a360
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Oct 2020 10:54:06.6282 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: x1A9YzPytDRQAFxT4RxE5a777VMPTUItNi0/9Z+YSujySGKSOus7Is35HZgQsQ37
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2647
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/DIsnuSMzATucqof6V7ZIzqWZDzs>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] 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: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:54:13 -0000

Agreed ... I had used Figure 1 but that isn’t that useful — that packet is flowing in the uplink direction. Perhaps we should just say “DHCP-PD client facing interface”?

- Bernie

> On Oct 14, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:44 AM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>> If not, perhaps we just say:
>> 
>> R-4
>> To prevent routing loops, the relay SHOULD implement a configurable policy to drop traffic received from an uplink interface as follows:
> 
> I'm not sure 'from an uplink interface' makes sense. In the case of a
> routing loop caused by an amnesiac DHCP-PD client it would be a
> downstream interface.
> The scenario when such traffic arrives from an uplink interface is
> 'the uplink router believes the prefix is delegated to the client but
> the relay does not have a route pointing to the client so it sends
> traffic back' - so more likely 'an amnesiac relay' case.
> 
>> For point-to-point links, when the packet's ingress and egress interfaces match. For multi-access links, when the packet's ingress and egress interface match, and the source MAC and next-hop MAC addresses match. An ICMPv6 Type 1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to
>> destination) error message MAY be sent as per [RFC4443], section 3.1.  The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
>> 
>> - Bernie
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ianfarrer@gmx.com <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 9:16 AM
>> To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>ca>; Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>om>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for all of the discussion on this. We’ve reworked the requirement as follows:
>> 
>> R-4
>> To prevent routing loops, the relay SHOULD implement a configurable policy to drop client traffic as follows:  For point-to-point links, when the packet's ingress and egress interfaces match. For multi-access links, when the packet's ingress and egress interface match, and the source MAC and next-hop MAC addresses match. An ICMPv6 Type 1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to
>> destination) error message MAY be sent back to the client.  The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ian
>> 
>>>> On 9. Oct 2020, at 17:41, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think there is confusion re: the scenario we are talking about.
>>>> I've attached the diagram for the case which concerns me.
>>>> So:
>>>> - The Relay R has an interface eth0 connected to a switch S.
>>>> - Devices A and B are connected to the same switch and using R as a
>>>> default gateway.
>>>> - The prefix 2001:db8::/56 was delegated to a client A via the relay R.
>>> 
>>> a friendly amendment to your example to aid in human comprehension:
>>>    } - The prefix 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64 was delegated to a client A via the relay R.
>>>    }  - R installs a route for 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64 towards A via eth0.
>>> 
>>>> - The device B (which has an address NOT from the delegated prefix,
>>>> but from another /64 assigned to that common link, let's sat
>>>> 2001:db8:cafe::/64) sends a packet to an address from the delegated
>>> 
>>> now, my brain can more clearly see that 2001:db8:cafe::/64 is not
>>> within 2001:db8:0000:0123:/64, while I had to use a few extra brain
>>> cells to see that it wasn't in that ::/56 :-)
>>> 
>>>> What I'd expect to happen (with DHCP-PD or without - e.g. if R has a
>>>> static route towards A, not a dynamic route produced by PD):
>>>> - the packet is sent to A. Well, if A does not have a route to
>>>> 2001:db8::42 then indeed a routing loop might happen. But if A does
>>>> have a route, the packet will be delivered.
>>> 
>>>> What seems to be required by R4:
>>>> - R detects that the packet is received via eth0 and needs to be sent
>>>> back to eth0. R4 seems to require such packets to be dropped.
>>>> So if B would never be able to communicate to any address in the
>>>> delegated prefix, right?
>>> 
>>>> Am I missing anything?
>>> 
>>> I think that you got it right.
>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps the missing piece of the rule is don’t send it back to where it came from, based on link layer addresses (or link if point-to-point).
>>> 
>>>> Yes. If R4 was saying 'drop the packet if it comes from the same
>>>> link-layer address you are going to send it back' - it would make
>>>> total sense. But I don't think routers do *that*.
>>> 
>>> Yes, if we made the check on L2 address, then it would work.
>>> And I agree that routers are exactly doing that.
>>> 
>>> I think that it also works if B is a router with additional interfaces
>>> downstream, unless there are multiple paths.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>>>          Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry