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

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:16 AM <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote:
> [if - If I understand Jen’s question correctly, it’s related to the ‘working’ case.
> i.e. the client has completed PD, installed the routes and the relay has
> the relevant lease info/routes.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

> When the second device sends via the default route with a destination address
> in the delegated prefix, R-4 in it’s current form would cause the traffic to be dropped.
> As the relay doesn’t forward the packet, it can’t send a redirect (per RFC4681), so
> the second device can’t forward.
>
> Looking at this, I think there are deployment scenarios where R-4 isn’t going to
> work.
>
> My suggestion would be to make R-4 disable-able.]

Maybe 'on by default' for p2p links and 'off by default & enable-able'
for multiaccess segments?

> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jen Linkova
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 6:25 PM
> >> To: ianfarrer@gmx.com
> >> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [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.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:25 PM <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> I might be missing smth but...
> >> Let's say I have a relay and it's 'south' (client-facing) interface is
> >> connected to a switch. The client AND second device (another router or
> >> a host) are connected to the same segment.
> >> The client gets a prefix, the relay 'learned' (or shall we call it
> >> 'install'?) the route for the delegated prefix pointing to its 'south'
> >> interface with the client address as a next-hop.
> >> What would happen if the *second* device sends traffic towards the
> >> delegated prefix? As that device is usig the relay as its default
> >> gateway, the traffic would be sent there.
> >> If I read the draft correctly, instead of forwarding the traffic and
> >> maybe sending the redirect, the relay is expected to drop it?
> >>
> >> --
> >> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry