Re: [dhcwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8415 (6269)

Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> Fri, 04 September 2020 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@qacafe.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 BF1693A0AFD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 05:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 (1024-bit key) header.d=qacafe.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 1HEdfpUyNqoG for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 05:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (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 B78CF3A0AF3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 05:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id s205so7738035lja.7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 05:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qacafe.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=30+KWlnMZX+eVs+t4fdb8PbOPyD+rfrx7iAG4GchJPA=; b=P8fotVH60LWvqXOakcWA/1jX0cG8jPZ4k5PpmKB7+xz1/1jvQO9+EcRcvnca2ofueq 8cWqrBvNIakzfBn1NWihRzQhlTqi4wqhoUf8hXEvddnUGxiNx/Qx68V+5VUyp55TcT0r yNAntylcJq1uid8faJveUSSQLyLnr/zeRAV5Y=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=30+KWlnMZX+eVs+t4fdb8PbOPyD+rfrx7iAG4GchJPA=; b=qJmpSdFaq5oWBFSaAh0jhVig5Ezf3/f0ysefzRdb1nqmCv6EEQTwVnbH7TlKeIp4vf TakoClC6HnI3Q6Xx9v+ADnksmMip8OiKtmkwAoz9E720sIHzDuYqbmoReaUOrWbLWek3 0/t413NxRgjHa8mq3RUL4G7GUW02kb6dpINexTXguCfvOZ819CBmYU4s/xQPOVJpMUIB aD8SmLQEkaJh1eTbG3urvKRxugmomup6SaashXT2K6v8SHN40IyGc8WAQJ3f8wYOMjWr xXl0yN/NR3OPDCYrnPoQf0bNDx5w+7dNRxANgCx92M69BvufgCDnPXNoj85QSwxa7ZmV 1NKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533UD2G+TVIyWf0xOEWFWFV/2s0l9cRjFNh5V80p6sh/IYmAV6dt 0YOp/XT4DbbiL+1pmJpjhHPaA93JDtrk/49oPntk4w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsLbOJC9iyQzBcjx49AAtc+AgHRtseDHSDB2d7Ym5MKXvXZt/06QUzthoxr8/o8XJMIsLlnQB5eVqLsGPc3es=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9d04:: with SMTP id t4mr3905827lji.293.1599222747725; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 05:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200830154615.6CECEF4076B@rfc-editor.org> <BN7PR11MB2547CB85EBCF595FEE42A340CF510@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <6C4649AD-EB18-47E6-A5EA-440910977A26@fugue.com> <BN7PR11MB254709039DF02A88173AA96CCF2C0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <AF158680-0083-463B-9C52-141B17B5613C@fugue.com> <BN7PR11MB2547770FEDCEB3A47057FB7CCF2C0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAJgLMKvK8fi+C2Aq0-xGP2wpJdUNqQn1eoVNauH-YMiGr3AtaQ@mail.gmail.com> <3059.1599162178@localhost> <CAJgLMKsPvqu-A0qnJH68=7v8rLUgvjhTN=1xcBraBis1S6Wgug@mail.gmail.com> <21662.1599166850@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <21662.1599166850@localhost>
From: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 08:32:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJgLMKttcs3hO1or-uB+2UReUnJ-O1iqnbqJ_ya5VWvYRRsNEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com" <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, "msiodelski@gmail.com" <msiodelski@gmail.com>, "Andrew Yourtchenko (ayourtch)" <ayourtch@cisco.com>, "jiangsheng@huawei.com" <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, "ek.ietf@gmail.com" <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "fhamme@united-internet.de" <fhamme@united-internet.de>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb98e705ae7c0fa1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/NEY_oI7zvllHx9z_MHiiUeR0ch0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 05:33:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8415 (6269)
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: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 12:32:32 -0000

Hi Michael,

No, the test server that sends the option in the Advertise to the WAN
client's Solicit.

    step 4.  Verify client sends Solicit message
    step 5.  Respond to first Solicit message with Advertise containing
             Server Unicast Option (12)
    step 6.  Verify client sends valid Renew message
    step 7.  Verify Renew message in Step 6 is sent to the address in
             the Server Unicast Option (12).


We only see about half the gateways we test support this.

~Tim

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
>     >> Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
>     >> > IPv6 Ready DHCPv6 Logo has never had a test for this, so I have no
>     >> idea
>     >> > what the support is for general DHCPv6 Clients/Servers.
>     >>
>     >> To be clear, you don't test clients or servers for this, but...
>     >>
>     > Correct.
>
> okay.
> Forgive me for being dense.
>
>     >> > At QACafe we see about 50% of the Home Gateways support it as we
>     >> > have a
>     >> > test for verifying it.
>     >>
>     >> I guess the home gateway is using this as a DHCPv6 client on it's
> WAN side?
>     >> Or?   so there must be some server that supports it, or is it
> always your
>     >> compliance test server that answers?
>     >>
>     > DHCP Client on the WAN side using a test tool.  No Interoperability.
>
> You run your test client on the WAN side against servers, and you find that
> none of the servers answer unicast when asked to.
>
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT
> architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
> rails    [
>
>