Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-00.txt

ianfarrer@gmx.com Wed, 08 April 2020 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.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 AEE5C3A0C38; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 vg0ap5RZp0Qf; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 E3E7E3A0C41; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1586361583; bh=8MJUmiCGSv1ieWMq5P3j6/CcZ9s/kYbrQjdKmcF4QDc=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=KgExH8J7eF6JZ+P+o5XFnXKvuIb1UBm1EKTveOh2r7NM4nw7xSvB/w2YwehQMjAKT I1zBble585T0ZhmietBvixRWYd4OPJw+VcbRKsJa6yuHVq+frgTosewsKiqBcHZhw+ SK+1dv+aioGTho/iliGD6DfmgZDAe8rUa6APphyg=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.128.73] ([89.0.58.49]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.174]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mnpnm-1iyNoT1pf8-00pJOE; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:59:43 +0200
From: ianfarrer@gmx.com
Message-Id: <8503065A-83E8-409B-8920-EB21750AA784@gmx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DDC0560D-BECD-432B-903C-9C6E5073320F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:59:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAJgLMKvwmt02FRNyUOhsRoxYVrEx+-A2f-EvsVsUvpiZPb3O9w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
To: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
References: <158346050095.14620.2547383825421375669@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANFmOt=21NNyYom9KtVQ7x5mTE6rR2GAAg8DwAdaptuOWAJLrQ@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR11MB2547E17639F673343B5210BBCFFC0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CANFmOtnWHJzNtw8-aj+Dqgbqh0aeDMVtXcnib0RC4Bpi+OW0eg@mail.gmail.com> <43727BCE-732F-4629-8BCD-EBCDE2507B82@cisco.com> <BN7PR11MB2547273DA5E1D5F39F26629ACFF00@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN7PR11MB254754D841622448F49B021ACFCE0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <98E34F29-CAB3-4FC3-9B53-AB17AF811683@gmx.com> <75369E25-F0D9-47A5-A94C-EF40736656FC@cisco.com> <D847C596-F3D0-4165-BA5B-32E0D4E7BA35@gmx.com> <BN7PR11MB254768A96E2FCD8A56C92138CFC90@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAJgLMKs+v-NF4n7Jg+2LxA965e=FtYt-i9OA7XuWMFkum9VC+w@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR11MB254798D6651138C6A1614072CFC00@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DD7C9190-F204-42BE-A210-BEFD3B6AE534@employees.org> <CAJgLMKvv2ao2zLzVFyOoD8suhS_4FJ-jN5fZNCSYt69cNq=ijg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJgLMKvB7eNLArPhsL-XkFjR3qVLBEQKQRu9fCFaM6siSWn13w@mail.gmail.com> <C986677E-8F48-4284-94DD-24F9B2E0CCDB@gmx.com> <CAJgLMKvwmt02FRNyUOhsRoxYVrEx+-A2f-EvsVsUvpiZPb3O9w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:6XbVzF9p4CrHBvRpw6smmaQrGPnGhyhhMwVXrR6HsUEm8JrBfrs 1kwULv+zZ7Qg2vCDs60OYIN+TF8UKQZJbYcNJWFQYHFVlrz+tS9z8IaiDBe7Dz8i3uzZBe2 8TxOr4b/DWiRFtntxY6QHKnav/d3F4tZ3zLFohd0q/Q1IcsevXVKmBQgvsaYtu4jZdzAqtm zGvRAn5YLCxfHR4FxT0+g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ljkVRHdKYe4=:ADEtygpva2h63Auzlc1NPq RHRH/Z84sW6794Dg3vFJnSXk6PmdXguxUikHc0xbNbrfCLFNCeSVUe6FnL+hNbCzZUiQB8Npx s9abvzNXJetXeUHkMeYoiEI/6hydazn9gwug0cukiRTzBqt7OcwKH1rap87VI7dwLfLVXj9K6 0YNIdoy8sbxrKZIfAKn7YwAbwAjyEXaCUX4mI5XSibVsLetnYlbIZhX3Al/HROI6mk9s/NHGP ky3QeRwTJ85PedkjUCHGy4bUMAYyhW+PGAGEU3wasSCNmQHF4IUfGiT8StJXWS587eDeMyRoC IS/hrzTeC05I2jxWYgD46iYcyYE2gMYTkLJ6NqLfiTBr40ro5aTeiIxSQ9DXnxp18tL8tA6YK r3fe//HGU8xaFQaq7asE1i98k9JuvMKQUvsjUyWX0g5YU1Pq9/Us4xmJswlrKGyVg6oQ9SXrh qeIX/579MmxnSEFqUf+wRXic/qPNH4KIX3Q1SNAyWoeYI6xevf+yDDiX9LKU+4tOGw+6EbuCq 6QQ+relIXHGPFCXaCDpOWAytisNZ+bA2kUzKmLXtUGN9iBcK15Y1NVUlJsCRhsESRWW/OnkL6 e8yf7+Nro0Dl054T5/wUQD23yscEtoVgD+vli5d15DKPiN+PpuAuLVUn/yEiiCH8RZ4gQhFAF 1VKj7sNbtYuoLkgPu0/szxpyj/n1ofv85rpM5S0XwtDxvdH3Hd9GkZESf74BqUur5EvLcN5D+ irPTBdwq3AvLfXy3niYnZc7a5XEYB/BX6UivNnj32hkClwBsEjQ9yz0ZeuSsZ3UGm7KfvwKdS 9eQ0VlfXYGXTXk94/TZwDe54Man73RjsjgGHXf+2LjX/hOO8eAkLSPmUILHoEjN3c6nVtT/Ec kvA2nIIaiVFfr2hrgxVdcU+n+SQYSEtEGZImAyo5p7l4D87rOiYHFPGifWIGrUjxY7KdVaIbP BE8bMCt2wR52/FV1DqBsaPezzt0nmfvNzrJbpWVCUXcZ0gah1VTbJqQA/sHZHrlYjO8WrN3S9 3kuvtiVVMrMNN8LrR9YMmb5czMLQa4m/x5EpQU4CgE+T8cC9ij0jgWXVwqPIXKXQAdXeTWGB9 5XMkkU97YsDH6HFdXumNqE32qC97kq6o+Z7aUNaath8LfCmwDsMGLbnMJMhaXSQIWn0MawQ31 wVNH9xcbvF0uEhPWqRdQux26JN7vNgVgX8eEYgJXkky8CMWoWyzHNMyruXGLLB10pfnvFVcl3 6a9fv/WH5xCfM3i0o
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/GX5-EZGAUFmFb_kEAxzy1XfIWmg>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-00.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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 15:59:56 -0000

Hi Tim,

OK. If there’s no objections, I’ll put that in the next version.

One other point: when I presented this at IETF106, you asked about the applicability of the doc for non-PD relays. What’s your current thinking about this? I can see one or two requirements that could be valid (e.g. G-1, G-2 (but I think that RFC8415 covers these anyway).

Thanks,
Ian

> On 8. Apr 2020, at 17:51, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
>   We've seen it on our setups when we reboot a device and forget about connection to a LAN clicent.   Oddly we aren't trying to test the forwarding loop so I would say it happens.
> 
> I think that text resolves my issue perfectly.
> 
> ~Tim
> 
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:33 AM <ianfarrer@gmx.com <mailto:ianfarrer@gmx.com>> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> Have you seen this in the wild?
> 
> What about the following:
> 
>    R-4:    If the relay has an existing route for a delegated prefix via an interface, and receives ingress traffic on this interface with a destination address from the delegated prefix (not configured on the relay), then it MUST be dropped. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 
> 
>> On 8. Apr 2020, at 16:38, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com <mailto:tim@qacafe.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ole,
>> 
>> I think the issue in all of these cases is the CPE doesn't know it had the prefix previously.  So 3633 won't cover this case, as to the CPE it just seems like IPv6 packets.  It routes them out it's default route, which happens to be the same interface it got them.   
>> 
>> ~Tim
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:29 AM Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com <mailto:tim@qacafe.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Ole,
>> 
>> We have a rule for this when it's delegated to the CPE, WPD-5 to blackhole PDs not assigned.  In this case the CPE had no idea it had it.   G-3 disallows LAN to WAN forwarding before getting an address.  I think this case is WAN to WAN forwarding.   It's not in 7084 to my knowledge, as for 3633 I'm not so sure about.  Let me have a look.
>> 
>> ~Tim
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:12 AM <otroan@employees.org <mailto:otroan@employees.org>> wrote:
>> > Sounds like a useful issue to try to address – the DHC connection is because of the DHCP issues.
>> >  
>> > And, I assume looping occurs because packets cycle between SP router and CPE until TTL/HOP expires?
>> >  
>> > Do you have a suggestion as to what the CPE should do in this case? For example, are you suggesting that the CPE drop received traffic (except for DHCP and perhaps some other limited traffic addressed to it)?
>> 
>> A CPE should never provide transit.
>> I.e it should never forward a packet received on it's WAN interface back out the WAN interface.
>> 
>> A more specific rule for that is in 7084 and possibly in 3633, requiring a blockhole route on the requesting router for the delegated prefix.
>> 
>> Ole
>> 
>