Re: RFC7084

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 09 December 2013 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DED11AE108 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:56:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 Ks0eWz7GRn-h for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613431AE0D0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32544D; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:56:19 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fd+THQ7bgn7h; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:56:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3A7A34; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:56:17 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: RFC7084
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:56:16 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F44ABDBE-B3A7-4784-8EBE-D81EE0EBE362@steffann.nl>
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
To: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:56:28 -0000

Hi Carl,

> Not sure I should sent this one to DHCPv6 WG or the global IETF v6, so feel free to forward it if needed.
>  
> Last week, RFC7084 got posted.  I did already post a message on a rather badly phrased req (a SHOULD one regarding “long-enough”, but bumped into the next one today (this one being a lot worse!!).
>  
> “”
> WAA-6:   If the IPv6 CE router receives a Router Advertisement
>             message (described in [RFC4861]) with the M flag set to 1,
>             the IPv6 CE router MUST do DHCPv6 address assignment
>             (request an IA_NA option).
> “”
> I’m not sure who came up with this one, but this is really a no-go.
> So, according to this req, the DHCPv6 client must request an ia_na option if an M=1 is being received on his link ???  I might have understood it all wrong, but as far as I know, M=1 is not linked directly to ia_na, ia_pd is enough on its own, no ??

Actually the other way around: M=1 is linked to ia_na but not to ia_pd. A CPE always does ia_pd, regardless of the M flag, but the ia_na is only requested when M=1.

>  So, the CPE is expected to change its DHCPv6 client configuration based upon receiving an RA with this M=1 content ?

Yep, that's the meaning :-)

> I’m very curious on the replies now, but this seems really be going the wrong way.  You can launch a CPE which either listen to RA or not, and bound accordingly, however, listen + bind + force ia_na looks a bit too much to me.

You always have to listen to RA, otherwise you won't have your default gateway. If you don't want a global address on the CPE WAN link (assuming that A=0 in the prefix option, but it doesn't have to be) you could ignore the M=1 flag and not do ia_na.

Cheers,
Sander