Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Operational Headache: DHCP V6 Relay

Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com> Tue, 25 June 2019 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <naveen.sarma@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 AB4AF12076E; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 60BFbn5Vb9X1; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (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 F2759120787; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id u19so424263ior.9; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XXNIEwqNGEru6jQ1W8KoGVKcLUCJy4NMPPorDO72LIU=; b=Pg/5az/A83GCdq9N29f1hnCNleoIzSMC6A7QBZYskwKLvQfOZrpoYsmOahTYwvm3GA viOv1DjmAbNcjcJ/Aw3eHu7zsTuXRL/+g0hft4qOt/krd6W9hoeiTx6LWFGInTz8XzS7 mHYvwHiX8qfTnAnOPkCU6+BhCjqlGhztca4mtNhC1bt8Akb9sDm5TR6FtJEhbmc6YPkM 8+eCQUvIO8nP/p4zkW4MsnrmBr8HDVX41UIvDmWNORbrdbVqYKN+Js0Rvi/AHJIuwUGX VCpqWIDkFpoHrY0+rEf9Dy2U8lSjikJmfqnx1C62HHJqf7oEyPsRmsV00TFsHqe/zLQj DBYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XXNIEwqNGEru6jQ1W8KoGVKcLUCJy4NMPPorDO72LIU=; b=e8+QhBI4T0aWWlft9EvoeVaRVZpLORTKwVzp9v6LOXeFV4xeAt6Yw4QUXrAN7cZWNw 3Rj39UVn0eICprtND4CC9f/U6Qq26iOWcTZVE6PPuxv0u1eVYql2W4UMNz7w1zPK+Jev 9ck4HHQtDlzxHZg6GvDnoxcHLd9Fv+XF/Sn594qoNSp12BMulqa5lmi+/Ufrr27LvS88 LjDvpU7vc1I/WtQgBd4wW5BDpHdpgwiv8fyrxmiw772JRAwElm6BA4ZIiFlpFn17S4Tb fUoDfy1MpBDr8hnxuGCKlVTgcseiRbR1WgeAoP12K+mE9n7u9OU9uHrI6cWPEIW5O/kU 2cQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU3jBl5IoA0ATyq4Mb8ahdAqb7QVsXr4/23AOvlAexPcMhcmFpA PK8Lf0Cw3UxpmWCX2wh52vuFTH9MkeTIc4UBJpW2uA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwtOg5ILtGAEBlM1Hrh1ulOcRcwPohlvGIQTKczlEO7lLl3xpYzfce8y94HAHlfMMfd/68zvaCe774Ru9QBPK4=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b7cf:: with SMTP id h198mr1225870iof.259.1561479253839; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9101D413-7CEB-4B50-931A-CF30E6501299@gmail.com> <5222213.mTn1hNnrTJ@rumburak.ite.tul.cz> <8F987994-DF3A-4FF4-B8C7-CFAC62FACFF2@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <8F987994-DF3A-4FF4-B8C7-CFAC62FACFF2@gmx.com>
From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:43:48 +0530
Message-ID: <CANFmOtnHKDQe7snzA0QjnMvy4_hcsjbLgK9P_fxrAHpd2UnSKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: ianfarrer@gmx.com, Martin Hunek <martin.hunek@tul.cz>, Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003fd477058c283846"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/uGhHWwXcfzxi0bO6Ohq3Ek9EOcY>
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:14:18 -0000

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
Status:
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
Htmlized:
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> 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> 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/,
> 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
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>