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

15:46.hk S8 Oct. 27 2020

Good Day group,

The own sg,  vlan routing to ISP dhcpv6 ?
        -  its ipv6 route told unable routed?
        -  stub insight sg or modem.isp?

The own rv ipv6 temp at ipconfig /all is AT wan, none PD possible to be set
up...
        - wan v6 would be able to package exchanging to isp dhcpv6?
        - stub on this rv?

The modem.isp only network to endpoint pc,
        -  stub on modem possible ?
        -   stub on vrrp v6 of isp ?
        -    stub at ISP behind of the client 's rv, or sg or modem ?

       none of is then, no stub package would once tried , no longer
possible to resent it as probably immediately dropped at the 1st
transformation failed right afterward ?

Sincerely
Li HUANG

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 04:49 Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
wrote:

> Ole,
>
> > The CPE requirements document could have had a requirement that it
> should never forward a packet received on the WAN interface
> > back out the WAN interface.
>
> That is what I said before, but I qualified it by saying "should never
> forward a packet
> received on the WAN interface back out the WAN interface *via a default
> route*."
> It could be that there are more-specific routes that would cause a packet
> coming
> into the WAN interface to go back out the WAN interface and that is OK;
> but, not
> via a default route.
>
> However, the further discussion seems to suggest that the delegating
> router needs
> to be mindful of clients that maliciously or otherwise send ping-ponged
> self-directed
> packets. I was worried that the delegating router would not be able to
> distinguish
> CPE router A from CPE routers B, C, D in some cases. But, I am not worried
> about
> that anymore.
>
> Thanks - Fred
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: otroan@employees.org [mailto:otroan@employees.org]
> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 11:31 AM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; Michael Richardson <
> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>;
> > 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay
> Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-
> > requirements
> >
> > This message was sent from outside of Boeing. Please do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> > know that the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > We are talking past each other, and one of us does not have a clear
> understanding
> > > of the issue at the heart of the discussion which I see as a
> forwarding plane issue
> > > having nothing to do with the control plane.
> >
> > Well, the forwarding plane just does what it's told.
> > When you set up DHCP with static routes at both ends, which are
> maintained by snooping on a protocol. It's not inconceivable that
> > there are cases where you'd get a routing loop. Good thing we have the
> HLIM field. ;-)
> >
> > Markus' draft is still the most authorative document discussion the
> solution space:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-v6ops-pd-route-maintenance-00
> >
> > The CPE requirements document could have had a requirement that it
> should never forward a packet received on the WAN interface
> > back out the WAN interface.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ole=
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>