Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...

Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Fri, 04 October 2019 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F9512093B for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 04:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
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 ZF6OFdUu1JvC for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 04:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (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 4756C12093D for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 04:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id y21so5503473wmi.0 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 04:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZvalHysQJ+SN0EflRMmYxTiqGFBnC6dGxnce92khMh4=; b=OZMR5GbaErUxOm4Ki9mycRvI5DvJoUaiUD2NaHiUPMySFcsCUlZkP3S0kLdQFURu1j oLpZnodM4jFhmpW8C3T7ogqAFEQodxYCGF5l8M9Nv2ysSDQZgWvdiQW7IXWJ68vhx4Gv msyoo/5Qxb7jUwovTdSxri1PrkDtfAS15m40k=
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=ZvalHysQJ+SN0EflRMmYxTiqGFBnC6dGxnce92khMh4=; b=rOroY2CzlPFwjYrPc+9+quHQPvRZ4+CIpcWY1gWHyjYdNwA9wIoPDDWh37m+HyRwd2 F5DwmQD0+39g1est9Na+7fOyTUH+sTCkjeI1lYm34z6ev7gkxrNSUFldH1uJUrNbrwxe ajaiLLgw3tXCEPUQoFr3Ok+eP/4R8VfXF4QJsrtM7cG0s0olLi1JWn2NTB+bzI50RqoM doMIHdgebSdn09LMbSdeJnrtqHWNdLWCrjIY9MB1ygfwjgiynEkX6kseQ4SSHDbdoD4c 9C3H5bBsnhQEMTtlBS/nG0yguptz04+xAAg7jxyzYItx+WqSy8hC3K9lxBlND9Mev6Sh 0V9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVbrQhrD9kgpQPqsTKoseLSunulP9AQyl5jRhCI6QI9VEj8KiOx XfFA1y6aEd3Qm3PUpcT4UTZ/dtRNtKICvwCUjydRDg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzCVUmGElfBLU7oezDBckn5RjcAIXckJXtSXkCqKP0b/g9PJe4XiwDFWb4rAQArbpxFJx56vama3If3dD5c1Lw=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3182:: with SMTP id x124mr11239415wmx.168.1570188893475; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 04:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <56255ECF-9002-4440-BA0D-665EFC4BA9C6@fugue.com> <14354.1570177141@dooku.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <14354.1570177141@dooku.sandelman.ca>
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:34:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOSSMjVrxJHTAVjRCfhzrzaY2ZNr6dOR9cp90gAvsy49QiFPPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039efed05941417f5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/PMJsz6_bKHEESF4NfpKECxxT1R8>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Support for RFC 7084 on shipping devices...
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 11:34:58 -0000

Hi Ted,

For the testing that we have conducted at the lab, must typical CE Router
don't support DHCPv6 PD on the LAN as Ole pointed out.   There are a couple
that have this as an additional feature.   I'm not aware of RA-Guard or
Layer-2 filtering being placed on Ethernet networks and haven't seen it but
I must admit it's not something that I have paid attention super close
attention too.   Wireless has a different set of rules, which is a longer
conversation.

Regards,
Tim


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:18 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>     > I’ve been involved in some discussions recently where the question
> has
>     > come up: how good is support for RFC7084 in shipping routers?   And
>     > what gaps exist in RFC7084 that could cause problems?   And in cases
>     > where RFC7084 support either isn’t present, or isn’t useful because
> no
>     > IPv6 or because ISP is delegating a /64, what things might work and
>     > what things might not, if we want bidirectional reachability between
>     > two separate network links in the home.
>
> I see it (7084) in most every router at pubs in Ottawa.
> They are connected by one of the incumbents that also does TV (think sports
> channels in bars). There isn't always an IPv6 uplink (30% of them have
> IPv6),
> but there is consistently an IPv6 ULA visible.
> Less often in coffee shops (WPA is on chalkboard), where it seems that they
> tend to either buy from smaller ISPs (and provide their own crappy router),
> or they are a multinational with hostile portals.
>
>     > So for example, suppose we have "CE Router," which supports RFC7084,
>     > including prefix delegation.  And we have "Internal Router" on that
>     > network requests a delegation, and gets a prefix from the CE router.
>     > Presumably that prefix is out of a larger prefix that CE Router got
>     > from the ISP.  Great so far.  Let’s call the network on the
> southbound
>     > interface of Internal Router “South Network”. Let’s call the network
> on
>     > its northbound interface, which is also the network on CE router’s
>     > southbound interface, “North Network.”
>
> But 7084 has no requirements for DHCPv6-PD server.
>
>     > Similarly, suppose we have a network where unfortunately PD Isn’t
>     > available internally, but IPv6 is present on the northbound interface
>     > of the internal node and southbound interface of the CE router.
>     > Suppose further that Internal Router allocates itself a ULA prefix
> and
>     > advertises that as reachable and on-link on its southbound interface,
>     > and as reachable but not on-link on its northbound interface.   Will
>     > that be blocked at layer 2 by CE Router?   I’m sort of assuming here
>     > that the CE router is managing the North Network link, which is
>     > probably WiFi.
>
> That would probably work.
>
>     > The goal here is to have bidirectional reachability between the two
>     > nodes on IPv6 using either a global prefix or a ULA.  The concern is
>     > that something could prevent each of these cases from working.   What
>     > I’m really curious about is whether people have experience with doing
>     > communications of this type using actual routers that ISPs are
>     > shipping.   Is this “internal network” scenario part of acceptance
>     > testing for these routers?  Is this all a big question mark?   In
>     > principle this should all work, unless RA guard is hyperactive in CE
>     > Router.   But what about in practice?
>
> I have never tried it, but I'm keen to.
>
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
> architect  [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
> rails    [
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>