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

Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> Fri, 16 October 2020 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@qacafe.com>
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 6B98C3A02BD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qacafe.com
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 mv4agNvaOI4g for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C11D3A03C9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id c21so3512618ljn.13 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qacafe.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ISddoZhrr+4TdPWE23VUSadfK7UnxHjAm5qj2c+03T8=; b=qYdKqNZXDvB6ZipeUjbBEH4END2Poj5bGO7rbKWUnIHzH37yp6DvCZgta6Sn7tSWtx ZahD2eMrvN0wLP/2sA9lzguGOGoZd5Nu9mqKLk4IAupNF7G4ialXS5HXxc2c6XrDyppu Q9kiZ/DKCLHDSShbDgP3lhlAg8wnfowQ+sDLo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ISddoZhrr+4TdPWE23VUSadfK7UnxHjAm5qj2c+03T8=; b=sKn1byFzTooPE2bSvxZKDP2xKn4J5EAe/1Bl1ZBaSORpKyV0zga+OS2gM5ozdSFtU2 S2wqauSZiSIglhqMC71lvIKVN7tvTvw/nvWbeezJZC3d2+BJKMSj2BP1My6yPQEOhDOT cp3ewKoC+uIgjTu5Ktsai/Ad8AlRxIRi/V1wVdNrpxdHKkDBx5CDVUvx9V5bz1rWvwun k25fLKIVd+Kn0A+OUocpQqFQ6T/2Yt5dFaWncS0IRIvKTkKv3qmGsygKb/lH0FNEEPWO sU5qjC1zaxVuKIGsyPw+X4RQFt2DHukJy8swYB5GjiD7OR9gS8m9v+Z5qObtg64LTVMm MXFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qLEv/U2zLyIilXfwPHS/KTia3UQpWTT57grJS4FII08zZ0U82 Coqc7UT/u2g00K+GV4pShP8A6juUMJTrC1Rpd+7/PQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtAEiwpzE849jNYwUwKYSIau8SDkR5WgVIis5fAjQsltMs8q3e+toEckZVZrNTFvfNce3R+XccC785z+uAU+4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:914d:: with SMTP id q13mr2201982ljg.299.1602873484578; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <65f390e222244427bd3cbc1f58a3ec95@boeing.com> <533e7f91ae814feeb594bc42b7cd70c9@huawei.com> <c621dda1c2a348dfbe9ff86bd4170d4b@boeing.com> <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
From: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:37:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJgLMKstCxwtFOOX0Z1iDb1ZnvjH2__TQPSD0Xk7t4dHwOA3SQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ab273705b1ce10f9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/_xos2_lw0puKyQC5IaOOPThYSIU>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] 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: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:38:10 -0000

Hi Ole,

I was starting to think about that solution, but I was wondering about
multiple CPEs in the home and what things could go wrong if we didn't
allow hairpinning on the WAN.

~Tim

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 2:31 PM <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> >
> > We are talking past each other, and one of us does not have a clear
> understanding
> > of the issue at the heart of the discussion which I see as a forwarding
> plane issue
> > having nothing to do with the control plane.
>
> Well, the forwarding plane just does what it's told.
> When you set up DHCP with static routes at both ends, which are maintained
> by snooping on a protocol. It's not inconceivable that there are cases
> where you'd get a routing loop. Good thing we have the HLIM field. ;-)
>
> Markus' draft is still the most authorative document discussion the
> solution space:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-v6ops-pd-route-maintenance-00
>
> The CPE requirements document could have had a requirement that it should
> never forward a packet received on the WAN interface back out the WAN
> interface.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>