IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [Snac] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis / clarification of significant prefix change

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Sat, 11 November 2023 09:56 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 6F9EBC16F3E3; Sat, 11 Nov 2023 01:56:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g8nn5uHiGWU2; Sat, 11 Nov 2023 01:56:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (proxmox01.kjsl.com [204.87.183.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C3DFC15C285; Sat, 11 Nov 2023 01:56:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0FFEBE40BB; Sat, 11 Nov 2023 09:56:43 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=employees.org; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=prox2023; bh=0s9XVfIo5OQeiWj1 nKvXyd6c3a/tIFCeQ0jUU829UtU=; b=GISuT7dH2CVmZPn4xl1wSawLaiIQtRBv gHHezHswEr6iA0ejf/GMhHn0buvBGYlzO3g3r5FJr6lsJZDmS5hkjpemXqr5PHOX M7s1REOAeRdzpgliUF0q1r/XbIAmMlLrfqZUiP+43ptwUtRMRK4EDTZ+PhnOTww1 OxnyLBPEK6fk51m9TfVC5UV2rhZqF0CmDPQF5lTiq2PMoZ/OpDWqrsRhWiRbbJvK X73vqrEnGDW73CUqDpX+NNDz5CWkRvPjNw8QGcl/vgolqKc67AydZeR/5IOMB0Fz yI9FI1DAPektxfnarDpdb7XZ5ZRhSoUHJp5Tn93vjEy0jD9JbJwR9w==
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DFDE4E40B2; Sat, 11 Nov 2023 09:56:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (ti0389q160-4360.bb.online.no [82.164.52.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A12B4E11A6E; Sat, 11 Nov 2023 09:56:23 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.100.2.1.4\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <DU0P190MB1978DC76946D2CD331DE7232FDADA@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 10:56:18 +0100
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "snac@ietf.org" <snac@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B3DC0678-CBC8-4F7A-9CAA-24F8FBA046E7@employees.org>
References: <DU0P190MB1978DC76946D2CD331DE7232FDADA@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.100.2.1.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/e-WfkQ1aUxfz-PUSSt8Q4B5Lc-Y>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Snac] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis / clarification of significant prefix change
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <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: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 09:56:47 -0000

>  4. about the text of point 3 on “significant change”, what if the value of the M bit in the Router Advertisement(s) on the link goes from M=1 to M=0 ?  This might indicate that DHCPv6 service for addresses and PD is not available anymore, possibly.  This situation may occur when a router is abruptly removed from the link in SNAC home use cases.  Would that be a significant change as well, or do we want to purposely ignore changes of the M bit ?  (Maybe this could become a SNAC-specific requirement; although the WG agreed in general that PD client requirements should be in rfc8415bis if possible.)

A DHCPv6 PD client is a router. Per RFC4861 routers do not process Router Advertisements (with the exception of doing consistency validation). Following from that the M-bit should have no effect on the PD client.

The M-flag is also only a hint, so I don’t think a client needs to take normative action if it changes (or two routers disagree on it). That the M-flag is set is no guarantee that a DHCP server is available.

Second Ted’s comment regarding RFC6059. That’s not in 8415bis as far as I can see.

O.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email