IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 08 October 2020 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 99C013A0ED9; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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=boeing.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 vfuGzXEdDH4e; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 1EC023A0D0B; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 098M8nhv018770; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 18:08:49 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1602194930; bh=t5e3y7MGk7jGLZJ6Y6p905pbMhkMe271JPWELBuxyp4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LcqJLbuZ+i1ACNr3o9xNdrF7RQdtgZX5w6++umgJOpwKNYN8W8+ctNfv+XIIBKt6O 82SzMiCDTpQ3x1YmP7ZVrzrTFb03ACqwXsFF8ihLSFAkn74YN/fAStzR73elpR4DRh h+5ar+tzwtOVrWgbIj/dYoXXiOsLDy6ZvTyYADI9qJfU6IWpEaf+EbIISygNnKFPSv 2qN9OvqSBXobCZFfaybrp6qLSQgVvMbDHXUAPTxq84+V2gsgpr0FMJSHU8bK7w8FW6 uEdSpy8BEiWYnakDnRBXymDqmp9nGhM+gcC058e48mDluUN58gwjI5ZQDMPz7V9Iar xe4VQTnw8gz+Q==
Received: from XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-11.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.113]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 098M8cJK017700 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 18:08:38 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:08:37 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:08:37 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
CC: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "ianfarrer@gmx.com" <ianfarrer@gmx.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
Thread-Index: AQHWnRHm524iPz3PtEmCznTLyJxcLqmONFtwgAAJLjCAAHpQAP//i44Q
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 22:08:37 +0000
Message-ID: <5b45336f7d9d489bb13a3559fd0a6b10@boeing.com>
References: <ff36a6d9f0834b5bbf331c6c40df16b8@boeing.com> <6373DDB1-753B-4E15-8097-9ED03F1BFC19@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <6373DDB1-753B-4E15-8097-9ED03F1BFC19@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: B7FD0597B6672F08934C80883DA8D9A6BE8FC2E9E88F71C828BFA02D29FB5A932000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/H9Hk1CMVxc2ClCT-19wTRo6MECo>
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 22:08:54 -0000

Ole,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Troan [mailto:otroan@employees.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 3:00 PM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>; ianfarrer@gmx.com; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>; 6man
> <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: [dhcwg] Question to DHCPv6 Relay Implementors regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-
> requirements
> 
> 
> > On 8 Oct 2020, at 23:55, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> This is indeed what the requirement in the draft says.
> This isn’t quite obvious how to implement, which why I brought up the question if anyone had implemented this. And if it’s supported
> in hw etc.

I can tell you how we will do it in AERO/OMNI. R will have an OMNI interface
neighbor cache entry (NCE) for A that links the prefix A with the link-layer
address of A. Then, when R receives a packet from A's link-layer address it
consults its NCE to see that A is the holder of prefix A and therefore not a
valid source of packets with destination address in A. We will have this in
our code soon - thanks for the catch!

Fred

> Ole=

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email