IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023

Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> Sun, 24 December 2023 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <bevolz@gmail.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 EC2AEC14E515 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Dec 2023 09:47:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 NVHLnW3vX3Te for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Dec 2023 09:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 369CFC14F617 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Dec 2023 09:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-781197600bdso206001885a.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Dec 2023 09:46:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1703440017; x=1704044817; darn=ietf.org; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Ihr2ntNE/s11bTfdVOOHmM1oHwYDydagi2PIuMUniqU=; b=Oyld3Rr+P1BLlszbW4aWa0hdLb+qX8hKtDCCvrEyVmGGHrfRPKmVVhNtjWBxWlAZsm X9+hs1pkrA7JlVMLeU6aDCIoSoyFUgyd1NjVdLJjHo/vV9/n1PFJRAC5tyKK9Sv5WEzN flbZHwPCL7T585dv/xB15s5RhYA2EwSaBTEwAx8Teab00aYREQWY9xSKQekEKwkd6n9A MMXDqwEthSr0wUmawYYScYl9EztkCNgiOqmrIBQY/7RhzR2oR5kE2W7R6q1DFNHf9Nrh hnfW+enoV0KZdDvrQu4gWK0An+dx+tGKaL9iVASis/QG2LEb89SM2b8NVBAW5soWwdmz /wiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1703440017; x=1704044817; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Ihr2ntNE/s11bTfdVOOHmM1oHwYDydagi2PIuMUniqU=; b=Bquwk5u64nYh4vB4NvKHBzljRRgpMo5OBrr1MgOvlxOmC6x69g6M908D4fFquqslDL 8d5ppnz7abcoXWM2THrIzCnaDjT7HWFFHtpB4B40BAQMG/mfDKZYod0oz1xZMTyG/+nI Kna6EzlFhNl9uVZxgrVcjbHZvvE6TwxfKKEqcEFQtxCYSNyWPDUIwOYSzz6czUxnS7k6 zEOHpCjggDEGTafIWFhomAqLek/g8sWzhJ6TtTenfkdUEXXaQ/NWCshQBk+QmRjhaKGC MbrsJiUY0lf/eghQzt/JedUve/GqC8Obsy9mhkHC1M9r6HrrZp+3/ZxtwWCdrb950kwc BgCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz5u6V3dwi7GzugqTgjqbLAYTOzdNvFBqpejQwNHwv2ezy7Nao7 wc4P3dE+/K70CWI9W6MKGslJ7ViJ8g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFiu9z8d9N22v6mqA9GSYwb8l8kG1fF4puEcodyNyR5Anmi+i2deYN6iobv9dRsLLuQvjSwGA==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e40b:0:b0:781:f9d:e472 with SMTP id q11-20020ae9e40b000000b007810f9de472mr4969250qkc.21.1703440016658; Sun, 24 Dec 2023 09:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (d-24-233-121-124.nh.cpe.atlanticbb.net. [24.233.121.124]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z27-20020a05620a261b00b007811b8e3ff5sm2873227qko.48.2023.12.24.09.46.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Dec 2023 09:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 12:46:45 -0500
Message-Id: <C90F00A7-B216-43AA-87B0-E03524EFD75F@gmail.com>
References: <15477.1703435979@localhost>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Daryll Swer <contact=40daryllswer.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <15477.1703435979@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (21B101)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/fZApkRpZU3NM_WNYbKEwvUcHdHQ>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by December 11, 2023
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: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 17:47:02 -0000

If you want to report upstream, why not just relay the notification?

Happy Holidays.

- Bernie

> On Dec 24, 2023, at 11:39 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> It seems to me that a DHCPv6 server, which has received it's prefix via
> DHCPv6-PD *could* turn around and forward any ADDR-REG-INFORM it received up
> one level.  I think it need to reform ("proxy", application-level) the
> messages and take responsability for them itself.  It should not blindly
> forward or rely upon the "end" client to stop and/or retransmit.
> 
> While an RFC7084 fits squarely into the "gets DHCPv6-PD", and might even
> delegate DHCPv6-PD, I strongly think that it should never, in the residential
> situation, send ADDR-REG-INFORM from the home lan to the ISP.
> 
> There are a bunch of enterprise-y situations where an enterprise acts as an
> ISP for it's branch offices, and use stock CPEs. But, in those cases, the
> enterprise usually has some kind of management interface (TR[3]69) that would
> allow it to turn this behaviour on.
> 
> We have a way for the upstream to turn ADDR-REG-INFORM on/off
> (OPTION_ADDR_REG_ENABLE), and we should recommend that ISPs turn it off.  We
> should also recommend that CPE routers ignore upstream requests to report by
> default.  But, MAY be configured otherwise.
> 
> Meanwhile any non-edge home routers, which might get deployed in the home
> (including SNAC Stub routers) should probably proxy the information upwards.
> 
> The challenge here is that we have to send one ADDR-REG-INFORM message for
> each downstream host, and we have to do that from the address of the host!
> I think we should rethink this in some way.
> 
> I wrote some text at:
>  https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dhc-addr-notification/pull/68
> 
> and I'm sorry to open this can of worms, but I don't think that enterprises
> will be happy without this.  In particular, our desire to enable more
> (permissionless) DHCPv6-PD downstream will get the same pushback that has
> lead to this document.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email