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

Hi Fred / Jen

Please see inline below.

Thanks,
Ian

> On 8. Oct 2020, at 17:51, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Jen,
> 
>> What would happen if the *second* device sends traffic towards the
>> delegated prefix? As that device is usig the relay as its default
>> gateway, the traffic would be sent there.
>> If I read the draft correctly, instead of forwarding the traffic and
>> maybe sending the redirect, the relay is expected to drop it?
> 
> The way that I interpret it, when the second device sends the traffic
> to the relay, the relay would still forward the traffic to the client, which
> would then forward the traffic back to the relay, then at that point the
> relay would drop the traffic. Unless the second node somehow has a
> way of knowing that the client has entered into an amnesiac state and
> then does a malicious "flood-ping", we can expect applications to quickly
> learn that the IP addresses of the client are no longer reachable. Plus,
> these amnesiac conditions can be expected to be rare and transient;
> not steady-state.
> 
> Fred

[if - If I understand Jen’s question correctly, it’s related to the ‘working’ case.
i.e. the client has completed PD, installed the routes and the relay has
the relevant lease info/routes.

When the second device sends via the default route with a destination address
in the delegated prefix, R-4 in it’s current form would cause the traffic to be dropped.
As the relay doesn’t forward the packet, it can’t send a redirect (per RFC4681), so
the second device can’t forward.

Looking at this, I think there are deployment scenarios where R-4 isn’t going to 
work. 

My suggestion would be to make R-4 disable-able.]

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jen Linkova
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 6:25 PM
>> To: ianfarrer@gmx.com
>> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] 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.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:25 PM <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> We are currently finishing WGLC for this draft. It describes requirements for a 'DHCPv6 Delegating Relay' - this is a router functioning
>> as the L3 edge and DHCPv6 relay (only) with prefix delegation. This is a common deployment scenario, but RFC3633/8415 only really
>> describes PD using a Delegating Router - i.e the L3 edge also functions as a DHCPv6 server with no relay. When the relay and server
>> functions are performed by separate devices a number of problems with how relays behave have
>>> been observed, so this document addresses them.
>>> 
>>> During WGLC for this, Ole raised a comment related to one of the routing requirements:
>>> 
>>> R-4:    If the relay has learned a route for a delegated prefix via a
>>>           given interface, and receives traffic on this interface with
>>>           a destination address within the delegated prefix (that is
>>>           not an on-link prefix for the relay), then it MUST be
>>>           dropped.  This is to prevent routing loops.  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.
>>> 
>>> The problem that this is trying to solve is:
>>> 
>>> 3.5.  Forwarding Loops between Client and Relay
>> 
>> I might be missing smth but...
>> Let's say I have a relay and it's 'south' (client-facing) interface is
>> connected to a switch. The client AND second device (another router or
>> a host) are connected to the same segment.
>> The client gets a prefix, the relay 'learned' (or shall we call it
>> 'install'?) the route for the delegated prefix pointing to its 'south'
>> interface with the client address as a next-hop.
>> What would happen if the *second* device sends traffic towards the
>> delegated prefix? As that device is usig the relay as its default
>> gateway, the traffic would be sent there.
>> If I read the draft correctly, instead of forwarding the traffic and
>> maybe sending the redirect, the relay is expected to drop it?
>> 
>> --
>> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 