Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by May 30th, 2017

Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Mon, 19 June 2017 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
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 8F838126D85 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
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 rFbfpfiVuay7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x232.google.com (mail-qt0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::232]) (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 4205C1317EA for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x232.google.com with SMTP id u19so117179796qta.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aQ4oF8QTYzxP+lm8fxxeA/wLkE2brBzUXv9oDHeKhXU=; b=EIxwV4Cz5NpchPFgWfCpmxZYS+V1hZuFXCsQmW8PYwsBmonR5stzp4J3FyUQqkxEFu fUKRmfadG49zmgZDRYkeaH6IXfSdnryCQatqYf0G0+M5Wcs9IEfYo5O1ilRF3kWjSivM 49agV9Sn+bchU+W+bXxMS0m5fjEP7aswrPY5E=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aQ4oF8QTYzxP+lm8fxxeA/wLkE2brBzUXv9oDHeKhXU=; b=dWPRvowKjN7HvaoIBO9ta5E5B8fEtdS1Ua8VCu4hksaBUPJ/ISuv6Si0TPEjwxx9C8 omsN+h+caOGprpgbKsK89ebmjxcIxLL7WaEFzTJYIXyQMC1XX3RqVGgnGmLfVCJYmDoJ FcD7NHX/RyL6JzMvADAFoQBMxgGLhrfIMWWQLySS7meXgYtoPKpasMb/o8cLOuiQ1CRt PoRy6WuDmP3aiVNpZk+I/UT36eCU/Q3hjKuTNorO8PDT3doCzwmIbXLGwg4zQNy6HJft ZD4MeBIdFUr0tzBCxEquscn1gEHCc4tz+2PHMX0Fx0krZde3QPtyyBNIb8OqQCdrMuAQ 2bhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwp+rdp3he7yVyXBf3kIr5UZZzLzUjJ/QbMy8e4UDm7oUYoKToO IT9+s8t9EkBaYZAyIWCwX7jIsGBIT6Bo
X-Received: by 10.200.56.26 with SMTP id q26mr31006898qtb.36.1497897163369; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.38.228 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F0056821-DF5B-400E-ABAC-88BCA0EF68C7@cisco.com>
References: <8418750467ae490ea50e342380a565be@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <CAJE_bqcMLz7JBaSA2h6_xiB3AyxQzkMGfL87WeqKzwxKoSeD-w@mail.gmail.com> <67c761541b674041ba5a2eb0b9ea41fa@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <CAJE_bqeBg-va5zr=4HNrecECg_mmGpWECAc8V5UL0ckhHnJcNQ@mail.gmail.com> <7f897317e79e4576bebc772c45edb703@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <CAJE_bqd72=wKwe3_i3=rArJys1eWLizVdn_q+Dz9yaHFouP_WA@mail.gmail.com> <3227281E-1FC2-448F-A9D2-9E7603A24E15@cisco.com> <m2o9tjrhfn.wl%jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com> <F0056821-DF5B-400E-ABAC-88BCA0EF68C7@cisco.com>
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:32:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOSSMjWMJt1-qJM35kk3Eut=UHSPp-hizR0_nDE87ZMPJaf1vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?SklOTUVJIFRhdHV5YSAvIOelnuaYjumBlOWTiQ==?= <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f4c605549510552545cb1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/M_jKfJuGzrEZkiuu7y8Dcs58Xrg>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by May 30th, 2017
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:32:49 -0000

Hi Bernie,

We have CE Routers that countdown from when the IA_PD is received, and
others that always transmit the lifetime received in the IA_PD in RA
(Always the same).   It's about 50/50 at the moment.   When we were working
on testing for 6024/7084 this was a topic that was discussed but it wasn't
clear answer on what to do with the lifetimes.

You are correct that when the prefix timeout from the IA_PD it will stop
forwarding and transmit a Destination Unreachable message.

Regards,
Tim

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> I’ve added Tim Winters as perhaps he can shed some light on this in terms
> of what is tested at the NH Interoperability Lab for PD / CPEs?
>
> Even if a device doesn’t follow this (running down the lifetimes), what’s
> likely to happen when the PD expires is that the traffic will hopefully no
> longer be forwarded by the router (and with a ICMP destination unreachable
> notification) and perhaps RAs will be sent with 0 lifetimes to attempt to
> deprecate the prefix (and any assigned addresses) use as quickly as
> possible?
>
> Ralph or Ole might also have a comment with respect to what they expected
> a requesting router to do based on the original RFC 3633? I don’t think
> this 3315bis document itself caused this potential confusion to exist?
>
> - Bernie
>
> On 6/19/17, 1:55 PM, "JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉" <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>     At Sat, 17 Jun 2017 02:27:39 +0000,
>     "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>     > My reaction is you are wrong – the PIO would, whenever sent, be sent
>     > with the preferred and valid lifetime REMAINING on the PD lease. So,
>     > sure a PIO sent just after the PD lease started would have (close)
>     > to the full values, but the values sent an hour later would be 1
>     > hour less than they were.
>
>     Actually I agreed.  I guess what we're different is the view on how
>     obvious it is.  I suspect this is not so obvious and there are
>     actually implementations that can cause the situation where
>     deprecated/invalidated addresses are used.  There may even be an
>     implementation that naively copies the lifetimes from PD to RA PIO.
>
>     I've monitored RAs advertised in my apartment room.  The ISP is
>     Comcast and the default router is Apple time capsule.  The lifetimes
>     advertised in RA PIO are constant and do not decrease as I monitored
>     it in multiple consecutive RAs.  Of course, it doesn't immediately
>     mean the time capsule device uses the 'naive' approach.  I actually
>     don't even know if PD is used or the time capsule is the PD client.
>     And the time capsule might actually have some safety buffer period and
>     use a much lower lifetimes for PIO than those provided in PD.  Still,
>     I think this can be a potential anecdote to suggest there might be a
>     problematic implementation.
>
>     So I don't think it at least doesn't harm if we say that lifetimes of
>     site addresses derived from the delegated prefix MUST NOT exceed the
>     remaining time of the lifetimes in the last-received corresponding
>     PD.  (I don't think we have to specify exactly how to implement this
>     restriction).
>
>     --
>     JINMEI, Tatuya
>
>
>


-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR