Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Relay and Prefix Delegation

Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> Mon, 25 July 2016 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.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 86FF212B051 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 tqqXcSJEXAHo for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49DC612B020 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([62.225.30.139]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LuP5z-1bHhPb0ofn-011mNt; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:08:16 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ffaddf5-41fe-12e6-5225-2a7c2cd45f40@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:08:15 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <598C23F2-8104-47AC-A3EB-0193B11B1D0B@gmx.com>
References: <577FDCCE.5090107@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr16-awybeDPHjk7uRkesDtn8UfDewJ9_AwA3uxzR3KjhQ@mail.gmail.com> <54cb972a-7fe3-0637-f6b1-7ac01ec794ef@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1g5THruFQ30gLPK5XDaXLDJLLQeU2ZtzkMVZpwz5Svag@mail.gmail.com> <a0f4c01a-c59a-1435-398d-ecdea87e6f15@gmail.com> <3ffaddf5-41fe-12e6-5225-2a7c2cd45f40@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:0N2ExxoGdelvEg0S5gJOb2CojmtkVehYpfhkZjQrFFRCYnOJ3qt C6WPukKQY07xjrKoADDOMQ3P9ZBt11QBxLegALLTia6V3OEvEIVXF/4TpHRTNEEwUhJ+q1S jrdzUpKtcgZ+Lia9uBraxXeQAPvl/T3dLkGOhA5UCLnRCaFheQPMQw8wPT1swaf2eswaDep CQTKHsIMfLHoZyZ1eyS1Q==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:/gJaC/878mY=:QcQIti8oUTr5kt2Gf3NHD9 XNvB8+d9b69JTxx6vmM4pFQSZVPyo+uZOGb4xwqb/+zC9H4nQlNSma/7Du1c12Nq/wZ7uVnNO /2kIBdq+PuR8KYCqgFuQMPRkuWgCOeEOkpfahbbWH3R++1ZQk/xxaLgGq40WPngwOoK56ZL8N 5DmEoIRL+KOlnZr7o6UmpJzxoG7BTaJFBsizAEPcWfxx21sGhWHS1Iag3l9hVceInyW+BHnFw Uyv4axDn0mcJCSkkYethRHGy3owQ6wm1CzI241o6mK4YgTDChHfKg9AjlSEESbIHhgFKyLFCE RCNIHAn46gdGbieGgINiHD4Rj5OARSEov0xt2Sz4n2GvEGUROhd3ovLu5Xh9kjsiHGfm751cW 5qCGhsxFdZM0mlhtfJS9kWsgD3UgC7999WASq/DLFLzfgxYZ6FYvKVU/GHC+eimbuOra3TA/V /Foyz4xh27ESpJHkbZeyBSGE0LFAVyIU1IlXAOXNsFPYZf9AYN0Cvay/yRepSZzexhpwgG7ap mxgvM7M/HBe1+5BtHmNOlAlOIIwqvuAGyo5SpG7oqgTWzEmTwXnyCoYeXSHTY7egxXjN1a6OI L8ilNisHuosucGJdulHlzZuFVOhnpxgCwrfTGBVbXPveRA06dcxL/Xjml4AOYoqcc9YMEHh3D uH9wKAsf9pHjiLvXheEYDqLoCgBsshcRS8PhQNA8XKwTmaafydUw8L8Fobmqnv9MW7WX26Vhx O/lPZLRbdCFMQjVOej9zgkqee9sEWv0OKI7FbMb79/4E1YjLAGlkCl6fUVGSkPeWGT4IJR8lD ySJufHZ
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/cmk1WoL8Guz3Nm2qOVqaTcJcPvI>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Relay and Prefix Delegation
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:08:22 -0000

Hi Alexandru,

Thanks for the pointer to the document. I’ve had a look through it and whilst it’s certainly related, the specific problem that I’m seeing in vendor’s implementations is only really touched upon in Section 5.1. Yes, snooping is implemented, but the way that this is implemented, the messages that do/don’t get forwarded and the errors that get generated when things are not working are pretty much variable from vendor to vendor (and in one case, there are two different implementations in the same platform with differing behaviours).

I would like to see an effort to define this behaviour better and volunteer to work on it. I’m not sure whether this draft is necessarily the right starting point as it’s more concerned with the route advertisement part of the problem and enumerating ways that this could be performed, but it really depends on how this problem is scoped.

I’m also aware that RFC7513 section 6 has quite some detail of how DHCPv6 snooping works in SAVI for DHCP. I haven’t been through this in detail yet, but it’s probably got useful stuff in there.

Cheers,
Ian

> On 20 Jul 2016, at 17:00, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> There was a discussion today in the DHC WG meeting about the DHCPv6bis XML.  One issue raised was that maybe a clarification was needed about the problem of a Relay in a DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation setting.
> 
> We wrote a draft earlier on a problem in this setting:
> draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem-00
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg