Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 08 October 2020 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 450443A0EDA; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 fS9OFhu7Eohl; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 779F73A12C8; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.181] (201.51-175-101.customer.lyse.net [51.175.101.201]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 063614E11B2E; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 21:59:57 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 23:59:40 +0200
Message-Id: <6373DDB1-753B-4E15-8097-9ED03F1BFC19@employees.org>
References: <ff36a6d9f0834b5bbf331c6c40df16b8@boeing.com>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, ianfarrer@gmx.com, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <ff36a6d9f0834b5bbf331c6c40df16b8@boeing.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A393)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/TWKP4_b08bk8Hlrm28dkJIwtuqM>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: 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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 22:00:47 -0000


> On 8 Oct 2020, at 23:55, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Now, client B sends packets destined to an address in A to R, and R forwards the
> packets to client A since it still has a route for A. When the packets arrive at A,
> however, A forwards them back to R since it has "forgotten" that it holds the
> prefix A. When R receives the packets from A with destination address also
> from prefix A, it must drop them instead of forwarding them back to A to
> avoid looping.

This is indeed what the requirement in the draft says. 
This isn’t quite obvious how to implement, which why I brought up the question if anyone had implemented this. And if it’s supported in hw etc. 

Ole