Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09.txt - questions about Solicit Prefix Delegation

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 14/07/2017 à 20:35, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> So are the DHCP clients you are talking about setting the IP header hop 
> count to 0/1, or the DHCP header hop-count field to 0/1?   That is, what 
> is the behavior you are concerned about, and why do you think it might 
> cause a problem in this case?

Some clients I am talking about issue DHCP Solicit with Hop Limit field 
in the IPv6 base header (not DHCP UDP header) with value 1.

This Solicit is sent on a cellular network.  The cellular network 
encapsulates at some point in IPv4, and further decapsulates.  The 
encapsulation protocol is called "GTPU" by some non-wireshark packet 
dump format, with fields like "TEID", "GTP_TPDU_MSG".  This cellular 
network does not offer IPv4 access to end user, it only offers IPv6.

There is no GTP RFC.

There is an RFC for "Generic Packet Tunnelling in IPv6".  This RFC says 
that encap/decap decrements the Hop Limit.

This raises a potential speculation that the network drops an incoming 
packet that has Hop Limit 1.

It may be that the GTP encapsulation (no RFC) does not decrement the Hop 
Limit of a packet-to-be-encapsulated.  In this case there is no problem 
with DHCP Solicit having Hop Limit 1.

Alex



> 
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     Le 13/07/2017 à 23:14, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> 
>         On Jul 13, 2017 16:01, "Alexandre Petrescu"
>         <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
> 
>              My oppinion is to make DHCP spec Hop Limit > 1.  In order
>         to make sure
>              that the encap/decap of DHCP Solicit in IPv4 GTP happening
>         on a cellular
>              link does not drop it to 0 upon decap.
> 
> 
>         If a link local sourced multicast with a hop limit of one is
>         dropped between sender and receiver, ip is broken on that link,
>         ne c'est pas?
> 
> 
>     If that link is a real link then yes - ip is broken on that link.
> 
>     But if the link is a virtual link - like when on a tunnel - then it
>     may be that tunnel works or no.
> 
>     Alex
> 
> 
>