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

ianfarrer@gmx.com Fri, 30 October 2020 15:54 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 138C83A0CEC; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 IzvzuZPy9SYq; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56D6B3A0CC1; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1604073256; bh=5i31iW6mZC3abSV5RP5OqW5PjTZmjAPCEa/ULecppRQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=PL+EFgnVvjzJpEzOSImlIcqyItw1IBk6Mi+iL7asagDqZa+jGGJdy3l14UBxonxAw 0lwUS495PxoWfVRteb1AEmlvTBmF5Ni/mejb29ARRq8ltsq1I0O9RTfwuLnx9m/yG0 FFHd/U2Hj8MNFct7FyF8hbxRHfOywnQZIKwdtPP0=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.128.43] ([89.1.62.143]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.174]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MVNB1-1kyg2y3kmd-00SQxp; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:54:15 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: ianfarrer@gmx.com
In-Reply-To: <5878.1604009825@localhost>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:54:14 +0100
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E669113A-1D6D-4642-91DA-1F4155FD971F@gmx.com>
References: <5F6947F2-F7DF-4907-8DD5-28C2B20A91DE@gmx.com> <CAFU7BAT87uhUKZM-G9MjCgtmGbdCwXorP3SfMJm7_Ax7pvwDjg@mail.gmail.com> <f2a9e0188cd84f52adce279cfb04cbcc@boeing.com> <D259F559-8528-428A-A9DF-0D9FB07E6BE4@gmx.com> <BN7PR11MB2547029C572CB32F3C593AD7CF0B0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ff36a6d9f0834b5bbf331c6c40df16b8@boeing.com> <A0B74F43-07A4-47C2-B773-3F2071CFCED3@cisco.com> <CAFU7BARUKw_c2c9+3k9kJ0UqrATTruGKPGkVb5NPTo=vspb0NA@mail.gmail.com> <19432.1602258078@localhost> <644565BC-5818-4244-A34A-1B39C3FC9175@gmx.com> <BYAPR11MB25496B31F581D4E32D46542ACF040@BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAFU7BARy-GFLDx=jRPu8Mst_Lc9fVRNTMT1MxOpEKqJ+qq9oaw@mail.gmail.com> <BCD1B4F1-32F3-4ECB-8A97-C4E58D746F22@gmx.com> <5878.1604009825@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:UT3cL6tHZ9XGB3G0eo3d27npXtxCJrqNQVsiI478WzFGZ90hmEo dhhcFE/fvfHS1aDfxOXTzzfoFclhH4bvbomBi+XFr7D6ylEethvwHOJP9gYg8dt0ruXuTzB yOiEchJE1WffTQnbLOgsa01ca7snSO3+zo4QBx3EAba1OQbXhrB4m9k5zhATp5Hwn1hb8V/ SSclusSBGkSm2ns32rBbQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ldPl9kp0rAA=:0uTOz+/fQ/57T/dF6YViTY fR1w6G03lxvXmr3LKwjl5Z4kqVEdPdQNwHhtW5bk0JslsNxeQxDJdIVmZyZnsiiw8HwPrprBB kCoEvVqxqhVbt0lRp23scTGixQU9vZWH+m66P3HrZtYwOmkvgn5iKIzpNCpBClovFijNJrEQG JkMCNT9lSGhqQEhFWi+2rXP7Eq1YueWh3QpbYsZ35LSQcPbogcsboIK2fVQDwLwRFkKSke0yo d8CTFx6Q9JkoUS7idpn0QYiwjac0GFcbsaIpEZz7+QKjL7ep07mXDsyU3bxlvXv3gKrVJjEsd nKicWyeLfnkQmAo0VSYIIa/JgvykC/rMbg5ZH+evYLvQvk6zXyeI+OEjk8H7VeAwSqJ9VgSQb EC7mMpUUvBBZumGm+3yOcBCEUGdysXzD/67FwUqhYgM5sk/NWuvl2YIhyG6lGbtqKfr2vV6LU ADs1TTRH8NWvIABXj4X9YTFRzTfhXlM45DLonp2D+pYBUpOZAlWXIL3rDpmzw1Ne0ZhP1Ff6I P/ttLtqbumIbD4xDZaKrcQI40+w86qkDJdulPMuXw54jPE90Oh63mG96Y8laO9S7cCemKNcRG n7fmKsL0VVoJqlucwMM/FS0HqTMouakLLh6ISzzpkHH1/eM+Y/3vzVPqwVehILCW3AXWgL+u3 5UJ+9U9ztkiRv/7L+SnmdQ64b8hxVWP6fRb0eNv19bSKkbseUMrHJZpvQl9Ty2E6W8xDM9jqB D3aFdU0izx3jWEUikyxyImvDtXg8Fi+XqmnoMnuAfVFPRqdFcFtL9V8Zreh2WwQR1thcvdPWZ tvfvC1FKj8zqRtgWgkYKT+AcDJ81E8uDOCCLPKMW98/F0HGaXuynFKHOblQMvilZwa9jbdsdI hw6XG+KU6EGgiJDwMzww==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/lE_6cNHejaSbZ19BAYoIDNwmxFI>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] 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, 30 Oct 2020 15:54:26 -0000

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the suggestion. It reads better than my version. One question: "The policy SHOULD^WMAY?”  - I guess this was meant to be MAY?

Thanks,
Ian

> On 29. Oct 2020, at 23:17, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> ianfarrer@gmx.com wrote:
>> Sorry for the delay in reply, I’ve been out of the office for the last few weeks for various reasons.
> 
>> Here’s a new wording proposal incorporating Jen & Bernie’s suggestions:
> 
>> R-4
>> To prevent routing loops, the relay SHOULD implement a configurable policy to drop packets
>> received on a DHCP-PD client facing interface with a destination address in a prefix delegated
>> to a client connected to that interface, as follows:  For point-to-point links, when the packet’s
>> ingress and egress interfaces match. For multi-access links, when the packet’s ingress and
>> egress interface match, and the source MAC and next-hop MAC addresses match. An
>> ICMPv6 Type 1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to destination) error message MAY
>> be sent as per [RFC4443], section 3.1.  The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
> 
> I'm okay with the new concept.
> 
> I think that the sentence lengths and punctuation could use some work.
> I suggest:
> 
>    R-4
>    To prevent routing loops, the relay SHOULD implement a configurable
>    policy to drop potential looping packets received on any DHCP-PD client
>    facing interfaces.
>    The policy SHOULD^WMAY? be configurable on a per-client or per-destination basis.
> 
>    Looping packets are those with a destination address in a prefix
>    delegated to a client connected to that interface, as follows:
> 
>         1) For point-to-point links (e.g., PPPoE), when the packet’s ingress and egress
>            interfaces match.
> 
>         2) For multi-access links (e.g., ethernet), when the packet’s
>            ingress and egress interface match, and the source MAC and next-hop MAC
>            addresses match.
> 
>    An ICMPv6 Type 1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to destination) error message MAY
>    e sent as per [RFC4443], section 3.1.  The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide