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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 04 October 2019 05:44 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 91E1E1200F6; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 22:44:21 -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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 4_d_Pm5ZRzTI; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 22:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A188E1200C1; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 22:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:6c59:eca7:a965:fcd7] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:6c59:eca7:a965:fcd7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A3E84E11AF9; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 05:44:18 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:44:12 +0200
Message-Id: <F638F635-9A1C-409E-BDB8-C00DF00A64C8@employees.org>
References: <56255ECF-9002-4440-BA0D-665EFC4BA9C6@fugue.com>
Cc: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <56255ECF-9002-4440-BA0D-665EFC4BA9C6@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A860)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/_dQClmO7vy-bgqJeLZtxxGuT0Ec>
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 05:44:22 -0000

Ted,

[top posting]

RFC7084 does not have any support for internal routers. 

Futher:
It might just be the way you describe the use cases, there seems to be a misconception about how routers work with regards to ND “advertisements”. ND is not a routing protocol. 

Hierarchical PD which you also allude to, was proposed, has limitations and was not standardized. That why HNCP was done. 

If you have a set of rfc7084 routers I believe you are left with manual configuration of prefixes and either manually configured static routing or RIP. 

Cheers 
Ole

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 02:40, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> (If you got this as a Bcc, it’s because I am hoping you can contribute to the discussion, but might not be on the mailing list to which I sent the question, so please answer on-list if you are willing.)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.”
> 
> viz:
> 
>                                                ISP
>                                                 |
>                                             CE Router
>                                                 |
> North Network    |-------------------------------+--------------+-----------------|
>                                                 |              |
>                                           Internal Router      +---- Node A
>                                                 |
> South Network    |-----------+-------------------+--------------------------------|
>                             |
>                   Node B ---+
> 
> 
> If I want hosts on South Network to communicate with hosts on North Network, what do I have to do?   Should Internal Router publish an RA on its northbound interface?   What is the likelihood of that being filtered by the network?   If packets for South Network are forwarded through CE Router, will it forward them on to Internal Router, forward them north, or drop them?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Okay, now what if there’s no IPv6 support on CE Router or being provided by CE router on North Network.   Suppose Internal Router allocates a ULA and allocates two /64s out of the ULA, one of which is advertised as reachable on its northbound interface and on-link on its southbound interface, and a second of which is advertised as on-link on its northbound interface and reachable on its southbound interface.
> 
> Fourth possibility: Node A is manually configured with an IPv6 address on a prefix that Internal router is advertising as reachable on its southbound interface, but which is not advertised on South Network because of filtering.  Node B has an address on a prefix that Internal Router is advertising as on-link on its southbound interface.   Node A has a static route configured through Internal Router to the second prefix.   Is there any reason to think that traffic between Node A and Node B will be filtered at layer 2 by CE Router, assuming that traffic on North Network is all going through CE Router?
> 
> 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?
> 
>