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

otroan@employees.org Wed, 07 October 2020 13:54 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 A93973A0D0E; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 06:54:58 -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 YY0DaOJwVBjo; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 06:54:57 -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 CC9933A0AE6; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 06:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:2114:afe8:8f1c:7f2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 175684E11ACC; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 13:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C7540300EF; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:54:54 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <bb7c15dd4ba04730bd062a03861827ba@boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:54:54 +0200
Cc: "ianfarrer@gmx.com" <ianfarrer@gmx.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <275AF9E3-BD9D-4C3F-96F8-7F490A73432A@employees.org>
References: <5F6947F2-F7DF-4907-8DD5-28C2B20A91DE@gmx.com> <bb7c15dd4ba04730bd062a03861827ba@boeing.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/WQPhDmp1hwbUQ7LmLUeEL9qr2u4>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] 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: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 13:55:05 -0000

> On 7 Oct 2020, at 15:50, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> We implement DHCPv6 PD on relays. The relay is always co-resident with the
> delegating server and behaves according to RFC6221. Are we covered?

What's your experience with implementing section 3.5 / R-4?

Cheers,
Ole

>  
> Thanks - Fred
>  
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ianfarrer@gmx.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 3:26 AM
> To: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>rg>; ipv6@ietf.org
> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
>  
> This message was sent from outside of Boeing. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe.
> 
>  
> Hi,
>  
> We are currently finishing WGLC for this draft. It describes requirements for a 'DHCPv6 Delegating Relay' - this is a router functioning as the L3 edge and DHCPv6 relay (only) with prefix delegation. This is a common deployment scenario, but RFC3633/8415 only really describes PD using a Delegating Router - i.e the L3 edge also functions as a DHCPv6 server with no relay. When the relay and server functions are performed by separate devices a number of problems with how relays behave have
> been observed, so this document addresses them.
>  
> During WGLC for this, Ole raised a comment related to one of the routing requirements: 
>  
> R-4:    If the relay has learned a route for a delegated prefix via a
>            given interface, and receives traffic on this interface with
>            a destination address within the delegated prefix (that is
>            not an on-link prefix for the relay), then it MUST be
>            dropped.  This is to prevent routing loops.  An ICMPv6 Type
>            1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to
>            destination) error message MAY be sent back to the client.
>            The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
>  
> The problem that this is trying to solve is:
>  
> 3.5.  Forwarding Loops between Client and Relay
>  
>    If the client loses information about a prefix that it is delegated
>    while the lease entry and associated route is still active in the
>    delegating relay, then the relay will forward traffic to the client
>    which the client will return to the relay (which is the client's
>    default gateway (learnt via an RA).  The loop will continue until
>    either the client is successfully reprovisioned via DHCP, or the lease
>    ages out in the relay.
>  
> Ole’s comment: "And I would also be happy if we could have some implementors chime in with a "we are happy and able to implement this requirement”.”
> 
> 
> We would appreciate any feedback on this, especially from anyone with experience implementing DHCPv6 relays with PD.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 
> 
> Current draft version: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements/
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg