Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Fri, 09 October 2020 01:34 UTC
Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1B83A118B; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 18:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 0ndUx8tYzLFC; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 18:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (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 7A4A03A1190; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 18:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id d20so9099485qka.5; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 18:33:37 -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=LFQ/wft4XptRkyxud8OhaWMv6uY8xoQyZl61oXm5bxA=; b=Y+XV/hQhs74rKdWy2F7H4xdVgRmt4/YjDDA+0+Aygad08+uI+kyxkvU1+iDUQScR97 k3TI6D3xmBOdIUCKwv8pLoo5P+/ZqOhLTL8a+Oj4T3imrcf89pi9CKzIvJPtQca0Y20M FTDtpMiVovkK1m00fMqhYGttXririielVBBc2YGRtIwQnXYw8rws4Ltat8GGADj4tWiD UZqhYAtGWwvp1VqGKpjQeVq2ZRnF1uL7Vr6FqTs0PZyo9hhceJnvJLUyHen61dUXLs5z 8aIyg5iWnW0dpcRA9NjP/Adw/p7IYmPNWe4I96cmDxyD4cdiess2HHe52vSR0ykUyZLq c1LQ==
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=LFQ/wft4XptRkyxud8OhaWMv6uY8xoQyZl61oXm5bxA=; b=pBF97/JEMJOEPkyhBxLYaxP4Y59boYz8TAYt2sOeyJIXUuVR3pHXk2ynSomZGgvGPH Q8dCNk3n1IImv1tc5R0MHOHf8MmTk2V2tFaZ9h/f2ho7IVzwhCv7te2A5SPmYgxOX0Vr 7E4K6lUoENKY3/wRxW8G+lyf5KaRX06olKTwBIwnan4hRkPkAw8ccog+QZkb3V2d32ZR nqJhUOkgI+knvW2A5SyXX7boocN4m4HXQcy3sq9SE6PgotQNxuCxH2vJlmuN39XNc1Ri CNKjG+vCvS3FXSvmXV/6pKltRVjooNxdghjXwePb2X31hJJ3iigFtnGaYqVMXvVa8F5D pzdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328eFwKzS6xxXAgTh+rA7aIWOpC0eo9YdSizt+/PTslbo5oX+qP mK2DFJ8HsPIiD1HIJUblShw5vy9SYJmzM3CDxfA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOD1pPO3Ez5dcaBkdWevjQL+4UiPmvoTPmQTLMm/SNQqUaKkKJW4xzM3gxLhkZjX7lLTHXv4tiRFUy3+sICP8=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a74e:: with SMTP id q75mr3837880qke.277.1602207215913; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5F6947F2-F7DF-4907-8DD5-28C2B20A91DE@gmx.com> <CAFU7BAT87uhUKZM-G9MjCgtmGbdCwXorP3SfMJm7_Ax7pvwDjg@mail.gmail.com> <f2a9e0188cd84f52adce279cfb04cbcc@boeing.com> <D259F559-8528-428A-A9DF-0D9FB07E6BE4@gmx.com> <BN7PR11MB2547029C572CB32F3C593AD7CF0B0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ff36a6d9f0834b5bbf331c6c40df16b8@boeing.com> <A0B74F43-07A4-47C2-B773-3F2071CFCED3@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A0B74F43-07A4-47C2-B773-3F2071CFCED3@cisco.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 12:33:24 +1100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BARUKw_c2c9+3k9kJ0UqrATTruGKPGkVb5NPTo=vspb0NA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000f63ef405b132ef25"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/8DnXkvGxSE2mIHUz9FWwk4amsDU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 01:34:12 -0000
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:52 AM Bernie Volz (volz) <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > And of course connectivity is not going to work even if R-4 rule were not implemented, and seems best to drop packet early? > > If you take PD out of the picture and did this same (mis)configuration, what would happen? I was asking earlier about this issue as to what happens with “normal” routing and why this needs to do more or better? I think there is confusion re: the scenario we are talking about. I've attached the diagram for the case which concerns me. So: - The Relay R has an interface eth0 connected to a switch S. - Devices A and B are connected to the same switch and using R as a default gateway. - The prefix 2001:db8::/56 was delegated to a client A via the relay R. - R installs a route for 2001:db8::/56 towards A via eth0. - The device B (which has an address NOT from the delegated prefix, but from another /64 assigned to that common link, let's sat 2001:db8:cafe::/64) sends a packet to an address from the delegated prefix (e.g. 2001:db8::42). Why? Well, maybe that address was dynamically put in DNS. Or discovered by some other means. - As R is a default router for B (and B has no idea that the shortest path to 2001:db8::/56 is via A, not R), the packets are sent to R. - R receives them and checks the routing table. It finds that that packet needs to be sent back to eth0 towards A. What I'd expect to happen (with DHCP-PD or without - e.g. if R has a static route towards A, not a dynamic route produced by PD): - the packet is sent to A. Well, if A does not have a route to 2001:db8::42 then indeed a routing loop might happen. But if A does have a route, the packet will be delivered. What seems to be required by R4: - R detects that the packet is received via eth0 and needs to be sent back to eth0. R4 seems to require such packets to be dropped. So if B would never be able to communicate to any address in the delegated prefix, right? Am I missing anything? > Perhaps the missing piece of the rule is don’t send it back to where it came from, based on link layer addresses (or link if point-to-point). Yes. If R4 was saying 'drop the packet if it comes from the same link-layer address you are going to send it back' - it would make total sense. But I don't think routers do *that*. >But that seems more like a standard routing rule? > > It also seems odd that the rule says: > An ICMPv6 Type > 1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to > destination) error message MAY be sent back to the client. > > Shouldn’t the ICMPv6 be sent to the sender? In the scenario Jen and you are discussing, there are two clients? So, which client may the ICMPv6 be sent to? > > And, perhaps if there is only “the client”, Ian’s case is different? > > - Bernie > > > On Oct 8, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > > > > Bernie, > > > > Let's say two clients A and B are connected to a switch which is then connected to > > relay R. Clients A and B receive PDs from the DHCPv6 service that are relayed by > > R, and R establishes routes for the delegated prefixes A and B. A and B both regard > > R as a default router. > > > > Now, suppose two things: > > > > - client B discovers through some means (e.g., DNS) the IP address of a service > > endpoint within prefix A > > - client A somehow "forgets" that it received the prefix delegation A > > > > Now, client B sends packets destined to an address in A to R, and R forwards the > > packets to client A since it still has a route for A. When the packets arrive at A, > > however, A forwards them back to R since it has "forgotten" that it holds the > > prefix A. When R receives the packets from A with destination address also > > from prefix A, it must drop them instead of forwarding them back to A to > > avoid looping. > > > > Note: If R had sent a Redirect to B, the same scenario would play out except > > that B would send its subsequent packets directly to A. But then, A would again > > still forward them to R which must drop instead of forwarding back to A. > > > > Fred > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 2:19 PM > >> To: ianfarrer@gmx.com; Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > >> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org> > >> Subject: RE: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay- > >> requirements > >> > >> > >> Is this a model where in your Figure 1, you have a switch between the PD Client and Delegating Relay and you might have other > >> devices off that switch? > >> > >> In that case, why would any of the devices off that switch be using the prefix given the PD Client? How would they learn this? I don't > >> think the PD Client nor Delegating Relay should be doing RAs with the PD prefix in them (or a sub-prefix). > >> > >> If the PD Client is doing that, then any devices off the switch would be using it as the default router for that prefix and not the > >> delegating relay? And, hence no traffic should be doing to the delegating relay with the PD destination address. > >> > >> Or, do I have this model wrong? > >> > >> - Bernie > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of ianfarrer@gmx.com > >> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 12:16 PM > >> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> > >> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org> > >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay- > >> requirements > >> > >> Hi Fred / Jen > >> > >> Please see inline below. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Ian > >> > >>>> On 8. Oct 2020, at 17:51, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Jen, > >>> > >>>> What would happen if the *second* device sends traffic towards the > >>>> delegated prefix? As that device is usig the relay as its default > >>>> gateway, the traffic would be sent there. > >>>> If I read the draft correctly, instead of forwarding the traffic and > >>>> maybe sending the redirect, the relay is expected to drop it? > >>> > >>> The way that I interpret it, when the second device sends the traffic > >>> to the relay, the relay would still forward the traffic to the client, > >>> which would then forward the traffic back to the relay, then at that > >>> point the relay would drop the traffic. Unless the second node somehow > >>> has a way of knowing that the client has entered into an amnesiac > >>> state and then does a malicious "flood-ping", we can expect > >>> applications to quickly learn that the IP addresses of the client are > >>> no longer reachable. Plus, these amnesiac conditions can be expected > >>> to be rare and transient; not steady-state. > >>> > >>> Fred > >> > >> [if - If I understand Jen’s question correctly, it’s related to the ‘working’ case. > >> i.e. the client has completed PD, installed the routes and the relay has the relevant lease info/routes. > >> > >> When the second device sends via the default route with a destination address in the delegated prefix, R-4 in it’s current form would > >> cause the traffic to be dropped. > >> As the relay doesn’t forward the packet, it can’t send a redirect (per RFC4681), so the second device can’t forward. > >> > >> Looking at this, I think there are deployment scenarios where R-4 isn’t going to work. > >> > >> My suggestion would be to make R-4 disable-able.] > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jen Linkova > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 6:25 PM > >>>> To: ianfarrer@gmx.com > >>>> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>; 6man > >>>> <ipv6@ietf.org> > >>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors > >>>> regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements > >>>> > >>>> This message was sent from outside of Boeing. Please do not click > >>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 9:25 PM <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote: > >>>>> We are currently finishing WGLC for this draft. It describes > >>>>> requirements for a 'DHCPv6 Delegating Relay' - this is a router > >>>>> functioning > >>>> as the L3 edge and DHCPv6 relay (only) with prefix delegation. This > >>>> is a common deployment scenario, but RFC3633/8415 only really > >>>> describes PD using a Delegating Router - i.e the L3 edge also > >>>> functions as a DHCPv6 server with no relay. When the relay and server > >>>> functions are performed by separate devices a number of problems with > >>>> how relays behave have > >>>>> been observed, so this document addresses them. > >>>>> > >>>>> During WGLC for this, Ole raised a comment related to one of the routing requirements: > >>>>> > >>>>> R-4: If the relay has learned a route for a delegated prefix via a > >>>>> given interface, and receives traffic on this interface with > >>>>> a destination address within the delegated prefix (that is > >>>>> not an on-link prefix for the relay), then it MUST be > >>>>> dropped. This is to prevent routing loops. An ICMPv6 Type > >>>>> 1, Code 6 (Destination Unreachable, reject route to > >>>>> destination) error message MAY be sent back to the client. > >>>>> The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable. > >>>>> > >>>>> The problem that this is trying to solve is: > >>>>> > >>>>> 3.5. Forwarding Loops between Client and Relay > >>>> > >>>> I might be missing smth but... > >>>> Let's say I have a relay and it's 'south' (client-facing) interface > >>>> is connected to a switch. The client AND second device (another > >>>> router or a host) are connected to the same segment. > >>>> The client gets a prefix, the relay 'learned' (or shall we call it > >>>> 'install'?) the route for the delegated prefix pointing to its 'south' > >>>> interface with the client address as a next-hop. > >>>> What would happen if the *second* device sends traffic towards the > >>>> delegated prefix? As that device is usig the relay as its default > >>>> gateway, the traffic would be sent there. > >>>> If I read the draft correctly, instead of forwarding the traffic and > >>>> maybe sending the redirect, the relay is expected to drop it? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >>>> ipv6@ietf.org > >>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> v6ops mailing list > >> v6ops@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
- Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding d… ianfarrer
- RE: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay I… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Question to DHCPv6 Relay I… otroan
- RE: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Question to DHCPv6 Relay I… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Question to DHCPv6 Relay I… otroan
- RE: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Question to DHCPv6 Relay I… Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Question to DHCPv6 Relay I… Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Question to DHCPv6 Relay I… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regardi… Michael Richardson
- Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors… Jen Linkova
- Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regardi… ianfarrer
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Rel… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Rel… ianfarrer
- Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regardi… Michael Richardson
- RE: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DH… Bernie Volz (volz)
- RE: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DH… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DH… Ole Troan
- RE: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DH… Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DH… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DH… Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DH… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DH… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Rel… Bjørn Mork
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Rel… Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Rel… Bjørn Mork
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Rel… Jen Linkova
- RE: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors… Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors… ianfarrer
- RE: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DH… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DH… Michael Richardson
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DH… ianfarrer
- RE: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DH… Bernie Volz (volz)
- RE: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … ianfarrer
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … Michael Richardson
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] Re: Question t… Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] Re: Question t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] Re: Question t… Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] Re: Question t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [v6ops] [dhcwg] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … Philip Homburg
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question t… Michael Richardson
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DH… Bob Hinden
- RE: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DH… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DH… Bob Hinden
- RE: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DH… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DH… Bob Hinden
- Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question t… Michael Richardson
- Re: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DH… Michael Richardson
- how do routers with DHCPv6 relays learn when they… Michael Richardson
- Re: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DH… Bob Hinden
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DH… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DH… Jen Linkova
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question to DH… Bernie Volz (volz)
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question t… Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: [EXTERNAL] [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DH… Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … otroan
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … Timothy Winters
- Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question to DHCPv6 Relay … Ted Lemon
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] Re: Question t… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: [v6ops] Re: Question t… Ms. Li HUANG