Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation - src LL vs GUA

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 19 October 2017 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 77A5613483A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ztCJNv_D5Kx2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 02:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 D1F8813483D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 02:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v9J99TYA144525; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:09:29 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8220B206DB4; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:09:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720152066A8; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:09:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v9J99TeX011899; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:09:29 +0200
To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
References: <149869621720.6575.278128190348174876@ietfa.amsl.com> <08e4e953-3a68-d6cb-6066-f60514ef0ac5@gmail.com> <3285281858d043649d507b6bda7b8646@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <1f94b780-59c1-42ce-936d-0c8a71143444@gmail.com> <37917a26062f4e4c9715d324604e4d01@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <d944ac55-d67d-d7d4-8eeb-f60438fdda2d@gmail.com> <35558A79-C176-4D71-9E91-4BDB19DDD006@cisco.com> <67ba54d2-d53f-82bf-93c9-1b92631ef4e8@gmail.com> <86409a9acb7846ddbdff42c58328e7d6@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <eccd5dd2-3542-fdbc-89a2-7d13d563163d@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdruffgx6D16JXevMvh9K2-j37m=g3rR=rmAPH+u-on0Q@mail.gmail.com> <d0d848dc-8b56-fbf7-0c05-7584ca0a4387@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqc2AtaVkgurxEA9dyKuPoc2+_fXUGLEnTKVzyi18GR9xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86c2f76a-0a2e-fa61-184c-733bef7821a4@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:09:29 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqc2AtaVkgurxEA9dyKuPoc2+_fXUGLEnTKVzyi18GR9xg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/GSkVCSzgN258ai-zET6zpK-hvX4>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation - src LL vs GUA
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 19 Oct 2017 09:09:43 -0000


Le 18/10/2017 à 22:30, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> At Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:03:26 +0200,
> Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> But I need guidance to the following question: if the Client sends
>>>> a Solicit with a LL in src, MUST the Server reply to it?  (yes/no
>>>> is the needed guidance).
>>>
>>> I don't see the need for such guidance, at least as part of
>>> rfc3315bis.  What's your problem if we didn't have such guidance in
>>> normative text like a "MUST"?
>>
>> The problem is the following: exchange between Client and Server does
>> not work.  CLient believes it needs to send LL in src, whereas Server
>> believes the Client should use GUA in src.  There are other fields on
>> which the problem may reside (port number, IA_ID, and others); each
>> needs separate treatment.
> 
> To me, it's just that the server implementation is broken.  Unless the
> protocol specification explicitly imposes a limitation on the type of
> source addresses it shouldn't assume a limitation and refuse to accept
> packets that don't meet its proprietary assumption.
> 
> Now, the question is whether a protocol specification needs to
> explicitly say that a server MUST NOT have such an assumption.  I
> simply don't think so - we can't just add nearly obvious statement
> just because there is some broken implementation.  I wouldn't be
> surprised if there is a broken DNS server implementation that doesn't
> respond to a query from an IPv6 link-local address, but I just don't
> think we should write an RFC that has "a DNS server MUST NOT drop a
> query from a link-local IPv6 address" just because of such a broken
> implementation.  This case is no different from that to me.
> 
> You seem to think it's worth noting in the protocol spec, but as far
> as I can see you have not successfully convinced the wg about the need
> for it.

I can agree with you.

Alex

> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>