IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 01 February 2018 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 46833126BF6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:11:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 WSeRz30NKd0y for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2E7012AF77 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 37169B1; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 18:11:20 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1517505080; bh=1CWR1TvICxFvsLf+wrP0o/j0gSpjCEpns+YYsU1JoPc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=eDV67RYHm8ZQyv/HLEcoUDwTP/bqjntan1MJzJ6IwT39FTgEVNW37/5lepWfD3trF 9W7pTKpl+G9JOe8S82f6fcmna3adUJtqnDses01JIMguupUH9gxZHMmZ6sfDzd+v+/ HgClekbCsf0Mbk11TwaRRG/eTk+d3xMOLQZ5e/V0=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CCA6B0; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 18:11:20 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 18:11:20 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: L=0 [was draft-pioxfolks-6man-pio-exclusive-bit-02.txt]
In-Reply-To: <d9091a6779aa47cc905a1fdb76480b84@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011805250.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <91953634-9B4A-405B-AB36-FBB2079A0A40@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311125400.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <91E4B0D5-BB27-4961-883B-0774729F1A83@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr23G+rz7woT1K504UEb2=sQGJd2p_CcQogLA5BbmTomZA@mail.gmail.com> <32FB86D8-235A-434F-A20C-6624FB7C3CE2@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr1oTmBOQR7YJnJV3S9_NG54sA-+phzRMwPT5qQcF1nKPA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311327410.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr04NV0+r1V1XnOo9XUu2GF_RiVPN6pqM0pJ0a68=mC9Zw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801311402350.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2cTdK+kkojHa5qPOO4VyT=jW1pmJmf=uXSrdif404iQQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802010954270.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr28iU=jCBv7dy4D8gyeL=uB5hFu-YhGOKPiih9sykZ1GQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011138010.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <658076313dd5488080a596717d00c19b@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1802011733380.8884@uplift.swm.pp.se> <d9091a6779aa47cc905a1fdb76480b84@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Dg1d1P56hi-hssTSgBi-xh_jdUY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:11:24 -0000

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Templin, Fred L wrote:

> I don't think you will get much support. It just isn't needed when all the relay
> has to do is snoop the IA_PD's and do the appropriate route manipulations.

It sounds so easy, yet there are so many ways vendors get it wrong. Some 
examples:

Implementor takes for granted that there will never be duplication of CIDs 
seen on different interfaces.

Implementor thinks it's a good idea to only answer single CID per 
interface.

Implementor thinks it's ok to proxy-answer questions and not even ask the 
DHCPv6 server.

Implementor thinks it's ok to not relay answers from DHCPv6 server that it 
hasn't seen a question for (or that it forgot about it).

These are just some issues (not exhaustive list) that I have had in the 
past 6 months with one multi-billion USD "leading network equipment 
vendor".

Yes, I hate DHCPv6-PD.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email