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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 07 October 2020 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 C883C3A0A8E; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 07:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_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=boeing.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 xTZUsFkVQtwh; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 2D23C3A0A84; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 07:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 097EQwGq010266; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:27:00 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1602080821; bh=nAdjORCGIDxc8z64c7MJ4mPP28X3rpe8w/OAwcLdZ0o=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EadnQ94pQIIP9UqB6OKBTMun5h5SURE4qelpXOA7sXNgQv0gm289xVKn8fi4LmYe9 eSpa/UAWgOKeq5ODSne4fiRBA5TcUGarGswMUan5/TUC8RG9HQ/39qBfidtFDBdLSD a9RMtP5aQaQhdGJJdkLQ0Hg0TsoacxIKaHZVxmW5oQsYv8rxspQvTj1qM+5hGb0FjS T/i+o00ONDp5mUFx/G9MKjojZv+JC+wJCc0a0FBApjvDpmsi5WIXh9dvFGLtC/QGpt dR7JIx56tV7jcH/1DE5+PifUnhZpp6hRfejlbKLMXLJb4ZLN6cKBlRi35/X+kbKj1r PcsGi+eDX+KHA==
Received: from XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-08.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.110]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 097EQvam010251 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:26:57 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 07:26:56 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 07:26:56 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>
CC: "ianfarrer@gmx.com" <ianfarrer@gmx.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man WG" <ipv6@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
Thread-Index: AQHWnLXoMKJ/JAitSUqS66KPREymdQ==
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:26:56 +0000
Message-ID: <ec6841fc378e4a09a7d1cc9e0c94ed5a@boeing.com>
References: <5F6947F2-F7DF-4907-8DD5-28C2B20A91DE@gmx.com> <bb7c15dd4ba04730bd062a03861827ba@boeing.com> <275AF9E3-BD9D-4C3F-96F8-7F490A73432A@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <275AF9E3-BD9D-4C3F-96F8-7F490A73432A@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: C8F2271B61160DABBFBF90DCD4C30F161D779D0C4500D30EAB1943F1C082286E2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/KAQo-0KAalBfgTx3_IXNMOYLCCQ>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] 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: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:27:06 -0000

Ole, are you talking about the amnesiac client case - such as, the client reboots
and then comes back to life again with no memory of its past lifetime? Our
lease lifetimes are short - generally about 30 seconds - so any stale leases
should be very transient. But, our relays also retain knowledge about the
client<->server interactions and in some sense act as a proxy for the client.
So, the relay itself will clean up after an amnesiac client when it detects
that the client has suffered a traumatic event.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: otroan@employees.org [mailto:otroan@employees.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 6:55 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: ianfarrer@gmx.com; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>rg>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] 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 7 Oct 2020, at 15:50, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > We implement DHCPv6 PD on relays. The relay is always co-resident with the
> > delegating server and behaves according to RFC6221. Are we covered?
> 
> What's your experience with implementing section 3.5 / R-4?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
> 
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> > From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ianfarrer@gmx.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 3:26 AM
> > To: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>rg>; ipv6@ietf.org
> > Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [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.
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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
> >
> >    If the client loses information about a prefix that it is delegated
> >    while the lease entry and associated route is still active in the
> >    delegating relay, then the relay will forward traffic to the client
> >    which the client will return to the relay (which is the client's
> >    default gateway (learnt via an RA).  The loop will continue until
> >    either the client is successfully reprovisioned via DHCP, or the lease
> >    ages out in the relay.
> >
> > Ole’s comment: "And I would also be happy if we could have some implementors chime in with a "we are happy and able to
> implement this requirement”.”
> >
> >
> > We would appreciate any feedback on this, especially from anyone with experience implementing DHCPv6 relays with PD.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > Current draft version: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg