Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6 Relay
ianfarrer@gmx.com Wed, 26 June 2019 15:22 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 A77AC120074; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 MLeYB6X9PSRF; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 418AD12004D; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1561562532; bh=isDWTmYR+1HNWXJ3htTLcqX44oPAd0aSm++MZPzYPJM=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=bATTYmg68e/u1YfkmT4pMuveSrqhasM0j/VDilcbuBz0PorBDD+9L3iJH8LIMsNcI ynx5ypRTdmqrjVT/31QobrZD3rL1Gr+p7v8HwGl+AIiH0nIrwl1KiC479NYWcCpc0h mn8Fwe5KeBb6XC/JEYvzX8RHSmyUs8kHsH9dotIk=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.128.43] ([87.78.36.51]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.174]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N0X8u-1iTb4i22Bo-00wWNo; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:22:12 +0200
From: ianfarrer@gmx.com
Message-Id: <1353329E-9AD5-49D0-B82B-423719DA148E@gmx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3FB3A4AC-688B-4DA8-BFEC-1D028521B6EC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 17:22:10 +0200
In-Reply-To: <3ad799f39ebb41e4a4435a7fdfcc41d0@boeing.com>
Cc: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Martin Hunek <martin.hunek@tul.cz>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <9101D413-7CEB-4B50-931A-CF30E6501299@gmail.com> <5222213.mTn1hNnrTJ@rumburak.ite.tul.cz> <8F987994-DF3A-4FF4-B8C7-CFAC62FACFF2@gmx.com> <CANFmOtnHKDQe7snzA0QjnMvy4_hcsjbLgK9P_fxrAHpd2UnSKg@mail.gmail.com> <3ad799f39ebb41e4a4435a7fdfcc41d0@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:iWss4SeSwEh+DfMYMpVsz7zlQdTnAcEH6sS8DypyRyWfr+rzQAo a0RYcUmh/VSuLOUV4vtn2ktcmMkwJm7txeKTOR4CE107U3Lsr1s/y5yzj36lidV5e4AeNTF DegNg6MP8FB0XeRma/dqeJb7Y9vnyXP2fuvoEetNikcK1qeSGOPTOsUM+ERY+nqNELbOa6G 1vhQfb0wipSk700UgEKwg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:IjHetrFKv0s=:SPUD87s5sHizSlx1ri9N+V GU6v4rEEUzuW7sXJf+AR5VgGh9aLe55GvUtmKJhHz8y7WHwAPSn7PfAToCRMy3P3A/1sgslYo 8pPjZrGamujPm1K/HDJdluUCdmsuxxqlLYlqIAvQ2sdITJV37MaqodubHDt7iry0nnWJnEPcG PyZcl/rbeXum1U743aqXm5S0EQFciI2GpnEHtR4B8ejm4t6qtR8zITNEs4WWdg7nJCyRXQ3pq pB5atbY6LFZm1JZpuTvhKULijqzPIZ0HY1NEDhqdoBQBVgowmp4qTS/sAfuq9T1fOMqazx+Xa wcHrZeAMqM/rqgo/T3iTuBXZUiFa9xG/KtWOP+KRsApcD+xQ1bX2HQifuI51n3OUfci044N89 rlH50nRwtqHqLCCvW1/XVeJusqCihRbwjtOw72OpjOJFjUsVRxQk2IE27Pxr+rSGxpma/qHHU QU/NPwTLldS5pfVxGHPdM6VETlcCujDWbutfqApcVxVFs3NwV7CMPhSS0ZPOC2oSP4dxTpA17 rnkPdNiY/VWzUPoEWvM1fdOR+JFhysklMOQFXuuFF411IApKsj8eTf3v1UwMlhp8PDGzaQwZp IkjDPLZ5PJTw5zslMgbQAEnwKDIeTDbIPITcx7MZ23nbjNh2vgOAu2rpnJp/YeIcBFmXG3iNs PTZMfAsi/W1zp6wOOxPaFeJfK5fSDQaT/2RjniVffZLx3hDhXrsEHyZ2+a9WVfWttck673VK3 uMTXYqUoi+ZW5t9MXy/EdEKKUMsTeWNGUQ3+VKBh7tKMWR8q1CM78RGX/uWuEuptTpULrv8ae ZAYiK1eaoAOFY7rJr8CEyDnitftki9/LHAWhjBt387bCbCm2QHMW3rRYdUgNhgfQM9QvayHjl 5C1XZgqi6A90e+sMMIw2tjJ5wqkjKi8+dM1U6TeOvwHjOjIC9b167z2Ay7hIDvXwjJtfk7EOg +HRWc8Cq/4FfaYvEMi0LMkYS2NLy+LAigJw/Fs0WCwi7cyofTvJj9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/dPU_qaihFIZtKM_3iz0TFWDOuEA>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6 Relay
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, 26 Jun 2019 15:22:29 -0000
Hi Fred, In this instance, we are talking about being in a separate physical box, or VM. The problems I’ve observed are with L3 edge routers with the relay function in the access network with a centralised DHCPv6 server. We can clarify this better in the next update. Thanks, Ian > On 26. Jun 2019, at 17:14, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > > Hi Naveen, > > Thanks for the draft – a quick question - what is meant by “DHCPv6 relay function is not co-located > with the DHCPv6 server function”. Does it mean “co-located” as in within the same process, within > the same virtual machine, within the same physical box, within the same LAN, etc.? > > RFC6221 allows for the relay function to be in a separate process from the server function but > within the same operating system instance. So, the two processes share the same clock, IP > forwarding table, system memory, etc. In such an arrangement, can it be said that the DHCPv6 > relay and server functions are in fact “co-located” even if they do not reside within the same > process context? > > Thanks - Fred > > From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Naveen Kottapalli > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 9:14 AM > To: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>; dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org> > Cc: Martin Hunek <martin.hunek@tul.cz <mailto:martin.hunek@tul.cz>> > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6 Relay > > Hello All, > > A new draft on this subject is submitted today. Please go through the same in below link and let us know your feedback. > > ---- > > A new version of I-D, draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Naveen Kottapalli and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements > Revision: 00 > Title: DHCPv6 Prefix Delegating relay > Document date: 2019-06-25 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 10 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-00.txt> > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements/> > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-00> > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements> > > > Abstract: > Operational experience with DHCPv6 prefix delegation has shown that > when the DHCPv6 relay function is not co-located with the DHCPv6 > server function, issues such as timer synchronization between the > DHCP functional elements, rejection of client's messages by the > relay, and other problems have been observed. These problems can > result in prefix delegation failing or traffic to/from clients > addressed from the delegated prefix being unrouteable. Although > [RFC8415] mentions this deployment scenario, it does not provide > necessary detail on how the relay element should behave when used > with PD. > > This document describes functional requirements for a DHCPv6 PD relay > when used for relaying prefixes delegated by a separate DHCPv6 > server. > > Yours, > Naveen. > > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 18:34, <ianfarrer@gmx.com <mailto:ianfarrer@gmx.com>> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I would also be interested in working on this as it’s a problem for us. I’ve got something I wrote a while back. I’ll share it as a starting point. > > Cheers, > Ian > > > On 1. Apr 2019, at 11:31, Martin Hunek <martin.hunek@tul.cz <mailto:martin.hunek@tul.cz>> wrote: > > > > Hi Fred, > > > > I would be interested to address this issue, as it is the one I'm also having. But I would need some assistance, as I don't really know my ways around IETF processes yet. > > > > Martin > > > > Dne pátek 29. března 2019 6:37:25 CEST, Fred Baker napsal(a): > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-104-v6ops-deutsche-telekom-terastream/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-104-v6ops-deutsche-telekom-terastream/>, slide 3-4 > >> > >> What do we want to say about DHCPv6 issues in vendor product and/or services? This headache doesn't have an obvious draft. I think that probably calls for a person or design team to create such a draft for discussion on the list and in Montreal. > >> > >> Any takers? > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an interesting comment on projected traffic volume... > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops> > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>_______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… Naveen Kottapalli
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… ianfarrer
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… ianfarrer
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… Fred Baker
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… Sander Steffann
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6… Templin (US), Fred L