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

For relay the DHCP spec says something like HpopLimit 32, which is fine.

Alex

Le 13/07/2017 à 20:51, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> DHCP relay is an app layer encapsulation. The hop count isn't even 
> presented to the app layer. It would be bizarre to do anything special 
> with it. I don't even know how you would write coffee that would 
> accidentally get this wrong. So it shouldn't matter what hop count the 
> client uses. Hop count is only relevant at the routing layer.
> 
> On Jul 13, 2017 12:00, "Alexandre Petrescu" 
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Bernie,
> 
>     Le 12/07/2017 à 23:33, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
> 
>         Hi:
> 
>             What is the Hop Limit that a Solicit should contain in the
>             IPv6 header?
> 
> 
>         ND uses hop limit of 255 so the destination can check that it is
>         255 on receipt (whereas 1 could have been anything and forwarded
>         many times).
> 
>         But I'm not sure if that is a the best practice when you don't
>         want the packet forwarded. I would think that if the destination
>         is a link-local multicast, it really doesn't matter as nothing
>         should forward the packet (and if something is misconfigured to
>         forward the packet, you're probably in deeper trouble than just
>         with DHCPv6).
> 
>         RFC 4861 has:
> 
>         11.2.  Securing Neighbor Discovery Messages
> 
>         The protocol reduces the exposure to the above threats in the
>         absence
>         of authentication by ignoring ND packets received from off-link
>         senders.  The Hop Limit field of all received packets is verified to
>         contain 255, the maximum legal value.  Because routers decrement the
>         Hop Limit on all packets they forward, received packets containing a
>         Hop Limit of 255 must have originated from a neighbor.
> 
>         I don't know off hand if there's any place this is documented
>         (what to use for hop limit with link-local).
> 
> 
>     I think your explanation makes sense about ND.
> 
>     But, about DHCP, I need to know whether a DHCP Solicit with HopLimit 1
>     is valid or not.
> 
>     As I said earlier, some DHCP clients set it at 255 whereas others at 1.
> 
>     In some setting, the DHCP Solicit is encapsulated in IPv4.  Some of the
>     decapsulation RFCs say that the HopLimit is decremented.
> 
>     In that setting, it is not clear whether decrementing the hop limit
>     happens, or not.
> 
>     But I want to make sure the client which sets HopLimit at 1 (odhcp6c) is
>     the right way to do.
> 
>     I think a good place to clarify this is in the DHCP spec.
> 
>     The spec could say that the HopLimit has some preferred value.
> 
>             Is IA_NA with empty fields a valid option in a Prefix
>             Delegation Solicit, or must IA_NA be absent altogether? (the
>             intention is to only request the Prefix, because the address
>             comes from RA).
> 
> 
>         Not sure what an "empty" IA_NA is. Whether you include an IA_NA
>         or not with IA_PD is the client's choice. If it what's an
>         address (such as for management) on the upstream link, than it
>         should include an IA_NA. This is covered in the text in 6.3
>         (IA_PD only) vs 6.4 (IA_PD and IA_NA, typically).
> 
> 
>     Noted.
> 
>             Is ORO with empty fields illegal in a Prefix Delegation
>             Solicit? (the intention is to get the DNS server from RA,
>             but some client puts an empty ORO there).
> 
> 
>         An empty ORO is fine (it should not cause problems, but is
>         obviously useless). Though if they are following the rfc3315bis
>         and doing what they should, there would not be an empty ORO.
> 
> 
>     Noted.
> 
>             Is it ok to use a GUA in the src address of a Solicit Prefix
>             Delegation?
> 
> 
>         See 13.1 of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-09 ... the source address
>         here should be link-local.
> 
> 
>     Well, that contradicts some trial.
> 
>     I can say e.g. some (I believe Cisco) client puts a GUA in the src of a
>     DHCPv6 Solicit.  Other DHCP clients have this optional between LLA or
>     GUA.  The operator I work with wants it to be a GUA.
> 
>     As such, I dont know what is the way forward: should the spec get
>     updated?  shoudl the operator change?  should the Cisco implementation
>     change?
> 
>     Alex
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     dhcwg mailing list
>     dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>
> 