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

otroan@employees.org Fri, 16 October 2020 18:30 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 13FC73A02BB; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:30:37 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Z73IXlNtnS2R; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E1F3A017E; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a02:20c8:5921:100:8cfd:38cc:741d:443d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1EB54E11C77; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:30:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F1240D194C; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:30:31 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <c621dda1c2a348dfbe9ff86bd4170d4b@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:30:31 +0200
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F056E007-9302-4658-92E4-9A4F5F81BA79@employees.org>
References: <65f390e222244427bd3cbc1f58a3ec95@boeing.com> <533e7f91ae814feeb594bc42b7cd70c9@huawei.com> <c621dda1c2a348dfbe9ff86bd4170d4b@boeing.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/wkabJhdy8OUVyr6Yt9A1szwniso>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] 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, 16 Oct 2020 18:30:37 -0000

> 
> 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